feature request #10202
closedAllow entering specimen in fact sources in taxeditor
Added by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago. Updated over 1 year ago.
100%
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
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago
- Related to feature request #10194: Allow specimens as source for factual data added
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago
- Related to feature request #10203: Show specimen sources in publications added
Updated by Katja Luther over 1 year ago
Added the field, the preference is still missing.
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago
- Status changed from New to In Progress
- Priority changed from New to Highest
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
- Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller
- % Done changed from 50 to 70
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago
Katja Luther wrote in #note-3:
Added the field, the preference is still missing.
This seems to be implemented in the meanwhile.
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year 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.
Updated by Katja Luther over 1 year 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.
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year 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.
Updated by Katja Luther over 1 year 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.
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year 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.
Updated by Katja Luther over 1 year 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.
Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year 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