Add supplement to the ISO doctype TYPES enum (#185)

[andrew2net]

Summary

Fixes #185. metanorma-iso#1562 introduced the Supplement ISO deliverable (PubID ISO …/Suppl N:YYYY), modelled on Addendum. relaton-iso's doctype model did not recognise supplement, so parsing or citing a Supplement bibliographic item would fail validation against Doctype::TYPES.

Changes

• lib/relaton/iso/model/doctype.rb — add supplement to the TYPES allow-list.
• lib/relaton/iso/data_parser.rb — map the Open Data supplementType code Suppl to supplement in SUPPLEMENT_DOCTYPES, matching pubid-iso's canonical abbreviation (Pubid::Iso::Identifier::Supplement.type → values: %w[Supplement Suppl SUP]).
• spec/relaton/iso/data_parser_spec.rb — assert the Suppl => supplement mapping, plus the previously-untested Add => addendum.

Note

The Suppl feed-code mapping is an educated inference — there's no real Open Data record with a supplement on hand to confirm the exact supplementType string. Suppl is consistent with pubid-iso and with how Amd/Cor/Add are keyed. If the feed turns out to emit Sup/SUP, only that one map key needs adjusting. The doctype-enum addition is correct regardless.

Testing

bundle exec rspec spec/relaton/iso/data_parser_spec.rb — 13 examples, 0 failures.

Refs metanorma/metanorma-iso#1562

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[andrew2net]

Fixed in relaton-iso v2.1.3

[ronaldtse]

@andrew2net the Open Data dataset has no Supplement? Because there are clearly supplements on iso.org...?

[andrew2net]

@ronaldtse the Open Data has Amd, Cor, Add, but not Suppl or Sup

[ronaldtse]

Then how is a document like this given?

https://www.iso.org/standard/25249.html

https://www.iso.org/standard/50462.html

Anyway, the new PubID supports this.

[andrew2net]

@ronaldtse yes, the Open Data has 7 Suppl docs. I was misguided by Claude.

supplementType	count	mapped doctype
Amd	5062	amendment
Cor	2413	technical-corrigendum
Add	216	addendum
Suppl	7	supplement
Ext	1	unmapped

The Suppl IDs are parsed correctly, but doctype falls-back to international-standard currently. I'll fix it.
The "ISO 1101:1983/Ext 1:1983" doc has Ext supplementType and falls back to international-standard. I don't see any suitable doctype we currently have in the grammar. Should add appropriate doctype to the grammar or international-standard is ok for Ext?

international-standard
technical-specification
technical-report
publicly-available-specification
international-workshop-agreement
guide recommendation
amendment
technical-corrigendum
directive
committee-document
addendum
supplement

[ronaldtse]

We need to add "Ext" as a new doctype "Extract". Thanks.