Project

General

Profile

feature request #3616

Show DescriptionElementBase.timeperiod in Dataportals

Added by Andreas Müller over 5 years ago. Updated 23 days ago.

Status:
Feedback
Priority:
Highest
Category:
cdm-dataportal
Target version:
Start date:
06/18/2015
Due date:
% Done:

90%

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 Closed 12/18/2015
Related to Edit - feature request #3746: Implement time period scope for description elements in TaxEditor Closed 10/30/2013
Copied to Edit - feature request #8145: Implement TimePeriod DTO with localized formatting New 02/26/2019

Associated revisions

Revision d0e8e73c (diff)
Added by Andreas Kohlbecker 23 days ago

ref #3616 fixing multibyte character problem related to time periods

Revision 90425089 (diff)
Added by Andreas Kohlbecker 23 days ago

ref #3616 implementing display of DescriptionElementBase.timeperiod

Revision 940bbcf2 (diff)
Added by Andreas Kohlbecker 23 days ago

ref #3616 implementing tests for DescriptionElementBase.timeperiod

History

#1 Updated by Andreas Müller almost 4 years ago

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

#2 Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 3 years ago

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

#3 Updated by Andreas Müller over 3 years ago

  • Priority changed from New to Priority14

#4 Updated by Andreas Müller about 1 month ago

  • Priority changed from Priority14 to Priority11

#5 Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker 24 days ago

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

#6 Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker 24 days ago

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

#7 Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker 24 days ago

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

#8 Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker 24 days 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

#9 Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker 23 days 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

#10 Updated by Andreas Müller 23 days 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.

#11 Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker 23 days 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?

#12 Updated by Andreas Müller 23 days ago

#13 Updated by Andreas Müller 23 days ago

Improvements for formatting copied to #8145

Also available in: Atom PDF

Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 40 MB)