Project

General

Profile

Actions

feature request #10202

closed

Allow entering specimen in fact sources in taxeditor

Added by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago. Updated about 1 month ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Highest
Assignee:
Category:
taxeditor
Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Severity:
normal
Tags:

Description

... as an alternative to references. This was implemented in the model in #10194.

Maybe we should have a preference that allows swithing this feature on and off as not every project may want to use specimens as sources.


Related issues

Related to EDIT - feature request #10194: Allow specimens as source for factual dataClosedAndreas Müller

Actions
Related to EDIT - feature request #10203: Show specimen sources in publicationsNewKatja Luther

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

Actions #2

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

Actions #3

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

Added the field, the preference is still missing.

Actions #4

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • Priority changed from New to Highest
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
Actions #5

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller
  • % Done changed from 50 to 70
Actions #6

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

Katja Luther wrote in #note-3:

Added the field, the preference is still missing.

This seems to be implemented in the meanwhile.

Actions #7

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther

This generally works. During review I only wonder where to put it and how to handle it best.

My suggestion is to move it directly below "Reference" as one should either select a reference OR a specimen for the source. Also we should label "or Specimen" to make clear that it is an alternative and should not be used both (except for the rare case where a specimen is only a figure in a reference but this should be handled differently, there is a ticket for this).

Is it possible to make this "either .. or" mandatory by deleting reference if specimen is selected and vice versa? I could also add a strict validation rule that allows only either reference or specimen (I will do this in #10194). We should implement this now to avoid that we must handle incorrect data in future.

Actions #8

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

Andreas Müller wrote in #note-7:

This generally works. During review I only wonder where to put it and how to handle it best.

My suggestion is to move it directly below "Reference" as one should either select a reference OR a specimen for the source. Also we should label "or Specimen" to make clear that it is an alternative and should not be used both (except for the rare case where a specimen is only a figure in a reference but this should be handled differently, there is a ticket for this).

Is it possible to make this "either .. or" mandatory by deleting reference if specimen is selected and vice versa? I could also add a strict validation rule that allows only either reference or specimen (I will do this in #10194). We should implement this now to avoid that we must handle incorrect data in future.

Remove and add elements are always a little bit tricky in rcp, I would implement it with enabling and disabling the fields and adding "or " to the label for this release and for next release I already started implementing the removing and adding of the fields.

Actions #9

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

Katja Luther wrote in #note-8:

Andreas Müller wrote in #note-7:

This generally works. During review I only wonder where to put it and how to handle it best.

My suggestion is to move it directly below "Reference" as one should either select a reference OR a specimen for the source. Also we should label "or Specimen" to make clear that it is an alternative and should not be used both (except for the rare case where a specimen is only a figure in a reference but this should be handled differently, there is a ticket for this).

Is it possible to make this "either .. or" mandatory by deleting reference if specimen is selected and vice versa? I could also add a strict validation rule that allows only either reference or specimen (I will do this in #10194). We should implement this now to avoid that we must handle incorrect data in future.

Remove and add elements are always a little bit tricky in rcp, I would implement it with enabling and disabling the fields and adding "or " to the label for this release and for next release I already started implementing the removing and adding of the fields.

Sorry, I was not exact. I didn't mean to remove the field but the value. But enabling and disabling is the much better solution I realize. If this works we can leave it like this.

Actions #10

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
  • Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller

Andreas Müller wrote in #note-9:

Katja Luther wrote in #note-8:

Andreas Müller wrote in #note-7:

This generally works. During review I only wonder where to put it and how to handle it best.

My suggestion is to move it directly below "Reference" as one should either select a reference OR a specimen for the source. Also we should label "or Specimen" to make clear that it is an alternative and should not be used both (except for the rare case where a specimen is only a figure in a reference but this should be handled differently, there is a ticket for this).

Is it possible to make this "either .. or" mandatory by deleting reference if specimen is selected and vice versa? I could also add a strict validation rule that allows only either reference or specimen (I will do this in #10194). We should implement this now to avoid that we must handle incorrect data in future.

Remove and add elements are always a little bit tricky in rcp, I would implement it with enabling and disabling the fields and adding "or " to the label for this release and for next release I already started implementing the removing and adding of the fields.

Sorry, I was not exact. I didn't mean to remove the field but the value. But enabling and disabling is the much better solution I realize. If this works we can leave it like this.

This is implemented now. Please review.

Actions #11

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther

When recreating details view the state is not yet evaluated. So if a reference exists already it is still possible to enter a specimen.

It works fine if you enter a new reference/specimen and do not set the focus elsewhere.

Actions #12

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
  • Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller

Andreas Müller wrote in #note-11:

When recreating details view the state is not yet evaluated. So if a reference exists already it is still possible to enter a specimen.

This is fixed.

Actions #13

Updated by Andreas Müller about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Closed
  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther
  • % Done changed from 70 to 100

works as expected now

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF