Project

General

Profile

Actions

feature request #3616

closed

Show DescriptionElementBase.timeperiod in Dataportals

Added by Andreas Müller over 9 years ago. Updated almost 4 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Highest
Category:
cdm-dataportal
Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Severity:
normal

Description

see #3312

see also #3746


Related issues

Related to EDIT - feature request #3747: Check if time period is handled correctly for description elements in data portals ClosedAndreas Kohlbecker

Actions
Related to EDIT - feature request #3746: Implement time period scope for description elements in TaxEditorClosedKatja Luther

Actions
Copied to EDIT - feature request #8145: Implement TimePeriod DTO with localized formattingNewAndreas Müller

Actions
Copied to EDIT - feature request #8245: Improve representation of DescriptionElementBase.timeperiodClosedAndreas Kohlbecker

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Andreas Müller over 7 years ago

  • Target version deleted (CDM UML 3.3/3.4 - Postprocessing)
Actions #2

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 7 years ago

  • Target version changed from Unassigned CDM tickets to Reviewed other components
Actions #3

Updated by Andreas Müller over 7 years ago

  • Priority changed from New to Priority14
Actions #4

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago

  • Priority changed from Priority14 to Priority11
Actions #5

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

  • Related to feature request #3747: Check if time period is handled correctly for description elements in data portals added
Actions #6

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

  • Related to feature request #3746: Implement time period scope for description elements in TaxEditor added
Actions #7

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
  • Private changed from Yes to No
Actions #8

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • Priority changed from Priority11 to Highest
  • Target version changed from Reviewed Next Major Release to Release 5.6
Actions #9

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee changed from Andreas Kohlbecker to Andreas Müller
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50

Implemented

please review, for the page used by the integration test, please see : http://int.e-taxonomy.eu/dataportal/integration/reference/cdm_dataportal/taxon/c246856f-c03e-4cb7-ac92-d9b2864084cd

Actions #10

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Andreas Kohlbecker

Generally it looks fine.

Only the formatting maybe needs discussion. It differs from the default formatting of time periods in cdmlib. Is there a reason for doing this? Shouldn't we try to use a common formatting? Or is it configurable (whould be the best to allow configuring for all timeperiods at 1 place for the data portal.
The problem in the dataportals is that formatting might be locale dependent, especially for months but also for the format itself.

The current format is not nice for year periods, e.g. 2017-18 is currently formatted as 2017-00-00 to 2018-00-00. We should generally omit month and day if they are not given AND in case of months no day is given.
Also formatting without year is unclear 00-05-06 might be Jun 2006 or any 6th of May (but not urgent as such data usually does not exist). For sure "Jun" would be better then 00-06-00 but is a bit language dependent so needs further improvement.

So formatting for TimePeriod needs further discussion in general.

===

Minor issue: Testdata has "Mai to June" is mixture of German and English, I think we should use "May to June" instead.

Actions #11

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Andreas Kohlbecker to Andreas Müller
  • % Done changed from 50 to 90

Andreas Müller wrote:

Generally it looks fine.

Only the formatting maybe needs discussion. It differs from the default formatting of time periods in cdmlib. Is there a reason for doing this?

The cdmlib formatting is quite ugly in some cases:

a date with only a month (May) is shown in the taxeditor as #####-05-## which is also not no nice.

I suggest implementing a time period dto which handles the formatting consistently in the whole platform while respecting client localization preferences submitted via HTTP-headers.

Minor issue: Testdata has "Mai to June" is mixture of German and English, I think we should use "May to June" instead.

This is only freetext data, changing this would require ~15 minutes work and is not worth the effort.

I suggest to close this ticket now, agreed?

Actions #12

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago

Actions #13

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago

Improvements for formatting copied to #8145

Actions #14

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Andreas Kohlbecker

Andreas Kohlbecker wrote:

I suggest to close this ticket now, agreed?

What I really don't like in the current implementation is the trailing zero implementation for dates which have e.g. a year but no more specific date (month, day). It looks like 2017-00-00 to 2018-00-00 . Having only a year or a year and a month but no day is a very common use case but the formatting does not look nice. Can we still try to remove these trailing zeros (only for the case that a year exists)?

Actions #15

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Closed
  • Target version changed from Release 5.6 to Release 5.7
  • % Done changed from 90 to 100

Andreas Müller wrote:

Andreas Kohlbecker wrote:

Can we still try to remove these trailing zeros (only for the case that a year exists)?

Ok, I will try that, but will copy this request to a new ticket ....

Actions #16

Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 4 years ago

Actions #17

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago

  • Target version changed from Release 5.7 to Release 5.6

As there is the follow up ticket in 5.7 I move this back to 5.6 as the current implementation was done in 5.6

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF