Reintroduce availability statements for journals

[jazairi]

Why these changes are being introduced:

We had removed this feature, but UXWS would like
it back.

Relevant ticket(s):

• USE-363

How this addresses that need:

This removes the clause that excludes journals
from availability statements.

Side effects of this change:

None.

Developer

Accessibility

• ANDI or WAVE has been run in accordance to our guide.
• This PR contains no changes to the view layer.
• New issues flagged by ANDI or WAVE have been resolved.
• New issues flagged by ANDI or WAVE have been ticketed (link in the Pull Request details above).
• No new accessibility issues have been flagged.

New ENV

• All new ENV is documented in README.
• All new ENV has been added to Heroku Pipeline, Staging and Prod.
• ENV has not changed.

Approval beyond code review

• UXWS/stakeholder approval has been confirmed.
• UXWS/stakeholder review will be completed retroactively.
• UXWS/stakeholder review is not needed.

Additional context needed to review

E.g., if the PR includes updated dependencies and/or data
migration, or how to confirm the feature is working.

Code Reviewer

Code

• I have confirmed that the code works as intended.
• Any CodeClimate issues have been fixed or confirmed as
  added technical debt.

Documentation

• The commit message is clear and follows our guidelines
  (not just this pull request message).
• The documentation has been updated or is unnecessary.
• New dependencies are appropriate or there were no changes.

Testing

• There are appropriate tests covering any new functionality.
• No additional test coverage is required.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21681287543

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.003%) to 98.123%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
app/models/normalize_primo_record.rb	1	99.37%

Totals
Change from base Build 21631890289:	0.003%
Covered Lines:	1307
Relevant Lines:	1332

---

💛 - Coveralls

[JPrevost]

Can you see if you can get the "View journal contents" link on its own line and keep the button it had before we reintroduced this?

Holdings link good in this example, but the button-ish link and the two links on the same line feel weird.

This example (prod) has the button link I'm referring to:

It sort of feels like maybe the holdings link just moves outside of the fulfillment links area? Not sure. If it gets messy we can consult Dave.

[JPrevost]

I'm hoping we can adjust the link displays a bit, see screenshots and comment.

[jazairi]

@JPrevost Oh, good catch. I didn't have ThirdIron enabled locally. Should be pretty straightforward; I'll take a look.

[jazairi]

Hi, @djanelle-mit! Tagging you for review on the latest commit, which includes some CSS updates.

Basically, we are trying to ensure that Libkey links that display alongside journal availability statements are rendered as secondary buttons. We are also trying to maintain the same behavior for other results (first fulfillment link as secondary button, additional as underlined links).

I'm not sure if the selectors I'm using are excessively specific -- let me know if that's the case. Thanks!

[djanelle-mit]

From a style standpoint, this looks reasonable to me! The output looks intentional. I think there's a longer-term discussion to be had with UXWS about exactly how we want this section of a result to look when there's multiple combinations of actions and holding links, but I don't have enough direction there yet.

Consider the style and output approved on my end, not sure if there's other changes that someone else needs to add to approve.

[jazairi]

Thanks, Dave! @JPrevost, is this good to go from your perspective?