[Follow up] Creating type duplicates
remaining issues from #6413:
We should change order, first collection, then accession number.
- Also the status are not sorted. Order should be same as in details view but on top and preselected should be the most probable status (see "note on available status" in description of this ticket).
- After selecting the collection it would be a very helpful feature to show already existing specimen candidates for this collection. One can then choose either to use one of theses candidates or to create a new one by entering an explict accession number. If we don't do this now we should do it soon as it will prevent from creating unwanted duplicates.
Have we on purpose decided to only show accession number? Shouldn't we also allow barcode and/or catalogue number? Otherwise e.g. for B it will create kind of dirty data which needs to be cleaned up afterwards. Any kind of accession number should not be required as sometimes such a number does not exist, but only collection and status. If I enter a type designation and then add a duplicate without saving in between the first type designation gets lost. Maybe related to #8225?-- The user is now asked to save before cloning
- If 2 existing type designations have the same field unit they should not be listed both in the "base type" list IMO. In general to me it looks like the base type list should contain field units not specimen or it there a specific reason for using specimen?
- NK: Add "Preferred Stable Identifier" to the list of available identifiers
#7 Updated by Andreas Müller about 1 year ago
- Status changed from Resolved to In Progress
- Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Patrick Plitzner
- Target version changed from Release 5.6 to Release 5.7
The fixes work as expected. A minor issue: as type status is a required field but Accession number etc are not we should maybe move type status up below collection (or above?). Alternatively we could do indentation for Accession number etc. to show they are not on the same level as collection and type status. My preferred solution would even be to put Accession number etc. all to 1 row beside each other to show that they are alternatives and should not usually filled all.
However this is not release critical and can be done in 5.7 if there is no time for it now.