Add disclaimer by passing remark to Machine

[Enkidu93]

Fixes #542

Continuing work here

Machine-side PR: sillsdev/machine#301

---

This change is 

[ddaspit]

Reviewed 6 of 6 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Enkidu93)

---

src/Serval/src/Serval.Translation/Controllers/TranslationEnginesController.cs line 965 at r1 (raw file):

            embedBehavior ?? PretranslationUsfmMarkerBehavior.Preserve,
            styleMarkerBehavior ?? PretranslationUsfmMarkerBehavior.Strip,
            [string.Format(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, DisclaimerRemarkText, textId)], //What's the least misleading, easy-to-implement date to give here? Or should we hold off on a date and add it in a future PR? What about mentioning that it's been drafted using a fine-tuned NLLB?

I would specify the remark in the pretranslation service. I don't think there is a need to pass it from the controller. We should use the "u" format specifier to format the date/time.

[Enkidu93]

Reviewed 6 of 6 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Enkidu93)

src/Serval/src/Serval.Translation/Controllers/TranslationEnginesController.cs line 965 at r1 (raw file):

            embedBehavior ?? PretranslationUsfmMarkerBehavior.Preserve,
            styleMarkerBehavior ?? PretranslationUsfmMarkerBehavior.Strip,
            [string.Format(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, DisclaimerRemarkText, textId)], //What's the least misleading, easy-to-implement date to give here? Or should we hold off on a date and add it in a future PR? What about mentioning that it's been drafted using a fine-tuned NLLB?

I would specify the remark in the pretranslation service. I don't think there is a need to pass it from the controller. We should use the "u" format specifier to format the date/time.

OK, I assume we should use the latest build's DateFinished. I was mainly asking whether I should use the DateFinished or the date when the USFM itself was generated using the existing pretranslations. The second date could be helpful if settings were changed in XForge that affected the USFM output or general Serval changes were made. Then the user would know that they should grab the USFM again in order for those changes to take affect. In general, I think using the DateFinished of the build would be more what the user would expect. What do you think?

[ddaspit]

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Enkidu93)

---

src/Serval/src/Serval.Translation/Controllers/TranslationEnginesController.cs line 965 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Enkidu93 (Eli C. Lowry) wrote…

OK, I assume we should use the latest build's DateFinished. I was mainly asking whether I should use the DateFinished or the date when the USFM itself was generated using the existing pretranslations. The second date could be helpful if settings were changed in XForge that affected the USFM output or general Serval changes were made. Then the user would know that they should grab the USFM again in order for those changes to take affect. In general, I think using the DateFinished of the build would be more what the user would expect. What do you think?

Oh, I see. Yes, I would use the DateFinished from the build.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 66.06%. Comparing base (5ae9ac2) to head (cf7c0dd).
⚠️ Report is 79 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #681      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   66.08%   66.06%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         342      342              
  Lines       18836    18854      +18     
  Branches     2455     2456       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        12447    12456       +9     
- Misses       5492     5499       +7     
- Partials      897      899       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Enkidu93]

Still fixing tests

[ddaspit]

Reviewed 3 of 4 files at r3, 2 of 2 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Enkidu93)