feature request #9611
closedImplement setSecundumForSubtree for MAN and ppSyns in TaxEditor
Added by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago. Updated almost 3 years ago.
80%
Description
this is a follow up from #9601
Parameters are similar to setPublishForSubtree.
The labels should make clear that this is about err. sec. (MAN) and syn. sec (PP-Syn) and not about sensu (MAN) or sec. (PP-Syn)
Related issues
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Due date set to 05/04/2021
- Start date changed from 05/06/2021 to 05/04/2021
- Follows bug #9601: Set secundum for subTree does not work for misapplied names added
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Related to bug #9390: Remaining issues for set secundum dialog added
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Due date deleted (
05/04/2021) - Priority changed from New to Highest
- Severity changed from normal to blocker
This is a blocker as the current behavior by default sets the error sec and the syn sec which might be unexpected for users. If we have no time to implement before release we should better turn the configurator to use false by default.
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from New to Resolved
- Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller
Please review.
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
- Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther
Similar to the setPublishForSubtree dialog we should separate those parameters that do hold for all taxon types a bit. In our case it is "delete existing ref details" and "include taxa which are used multiple times". They should come at the end after some space.
A bit problematic ist hte "Overwrite existing sec refs for selected relations option which holds for MAN and PP-Syns. The UI should make this clear somehow. I have no good idea how to do this. Probably the best solution is to have only 1 parameter (similar to "delete ref detail"). I think it is not used a lot anyway so in the rare case that a user wants to explicitly not overwrite synonym syn. secs s*he may run the method 4x (for acc, syn, MAN and ppSyn). Adaptation in cdmlib should be easy.
What do you think?
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
Also I guess by default we should switch off "apply to MAN err. sec." and "apply to ppsyn syn. sec." as most projects do not use these sec. and having it switched on may lead to unwanted data. (this should be done in the configurator default values in cdmlib)
Those projects being used to err. sec. and pp-syn. sec. may understand how to switch it on. Alternatively, in future we could also have a DB preference for the default value.
What do you think?
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
Andreas Müller wrote:
A bit problematic ist hte "Overwrite existing sec refs for selected relations option which holds for MAN and PP-Syns. The UI should make this clear somehow. I have no good idea how to do this. Probably the best solution is to have only 1 parameter (similar to "delete ref detail"). I think it is not used a lot anyway so in the rare case that a user wants to explicitly not overwrite synonym syn. secs s*he may run the method 4x (for acc, syn, MAN and ppSyn). Adaptation in cdmlib should be easy.
I also thoughth about this when implementing, first I thought about to show two checkboxes.
What do you think?
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
Andreas Müller wrote:
Also I guess by default we should switch off "apply to MAN err. sec." and "apply to ppsyn syn. sec." as most projects do not use these sec. and having it switched on may lead to unwanted data. (this should be done in the configurator default values in cdmlib)
Those projects being used to err. sec. and pp-syn. sec. may understand how to switch it on. Alternatively, in future we could also have a DB preference for the default value.
What do you think?
I think we should have a preference for the default value for the whole configurator because most users will have a standard workflow for this.
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
Also I guess by default we should switch off "apply to MAN err. sec." and "apply to ppsyn syn. sec." as most projects do not use these sec. and having it switched on may lead to unwanted data. (this should be done in the configurator default values in cdmlib)
Those projects being used to err. sec. and pp-syn. sec. may understand how to switch it on. Alternatively, in future we could also have a DB preference for the default value.
What do you think?
I think we should have a preference for the default value for the whole configurator because most users will have a standard workflow for this.
Agreed. But we still need a default value for the preference. My suggestion is to NOT set err.sec. and syn.sec. by default. I will implement it this way now. Please let me know if you do not agree.
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
Also I guess by default we should switch off "apply to MAN err. sec." and "apply to ppsyn syn. sec." as most projects do not use these sec. and having it switched on may lead to unwanted data. (this should be done in the configurator default values in cdmlib)
Those projects being used to err. sec. and pp-syn. sec. may understand how to switch it on. Alternatively, in future we could also have a DB preference for the default value.
What do you think?
I think we should have a preference for the default value for the whole configurator because most users will have a standard workflow for this.
Agreed. But we still need a default value for the preference. My suggestion is to NOT set err.sec. and syn.sec. by default. I will implement it this way now. Please let me know if you do not agree.
I think you have more informations about the concrete data in the projects, so I think this is the correct default value.
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
A bit problematic ist hte "Overwrite existing sec refs for selected relations option which holds for MAN and PP-Syns. The UI should make this clear somehow. I have no good idea how to do this. Probably the best solution is to have only 1 parameter (similar to "delete ref detail"). I think it is not used a lot anyway so in the rare case that a user wants to explicitly not overwrite synonym syn. secs s*he may run the method 4x (for acc, syn, MAN and ppSyn). Adaptation in cdmlib should be easy.
I also thoughth about this when implementing, first I thought about to show two checkboxes.
What do you think?
So do you agree on having only 1 parameter? This will make the UI more simple, at least, which is an advantage. I will implement it this way now. Let me know if you do not agree and have another suggestion.
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
A bit problematic ist hte "Overwrite existing sec refs for selected relations option which holds for MAN and PP-Syns. The UI should make this clear somehow. I have no good idea how to do this. Probably the best solution is to have only 1 parameter (similar to "delete ref detail"). I think it is not used a lot anyway so in the rare case that a user wants to explicitly not overwrite synonym syn. secs s*he may run the method 4x (for acc, syn, MAN and ppSyn). Adaptation in cdmlib should be easy.
I also thoughth about this when implementing, first I thought about to show two checkboxes.
What do you think?
So do you agree on having only 1 parameter? This will make the UI more simple, at least, which is an advantage. I will implement it this way now. Let me know if you do not agree and have another suggestion.
+1
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
... and the preference if this is fast. Otherwise open new ticket as it is not really urgent.
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
Andreas Müller wrote:
implemented. Please adapt UI.
The UI is adapted.
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
- Related to bug #9621: New Preference for Default of the SecundumForSubtreeConfigurator added
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
- Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller
Andreas Müller wrote:
... and the preference if this is fast. Otherwise open new ticket as it is not really urgent.
I create a new ticket, maybe I am able to implement it before the release but with a new ticket we can close this one.
Please revie the adapted UI.
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
- Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
implemented. Please adapt UI.
The UI is adapted.
Can we have more space between Pro Parte and Overwrite existing ... to make clear that the below flags belong to all above selections. (see also dialogue for setPublish)
Also the "multiple-use" flag should be a general flag and not only related to accepted taxa (don't know why we had it only there before)
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
implemented. Please adapt UI.
The UI is adapted.
Can we have more space between Pro Parte and Overwrite existing ... to make clear that the below flags belong to all above selections. (see also dialogue for setPublish)
Also the "multiple-use" flag should be a general flag and not only related to accepted taxa (don't know why we had it only there before)
If it is a general flag I would use the term "object"? Is this ok or is there another term that includes taxa, synonyms etc?
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
implemented. Please adapt UI.
The UI is adapted.
Can we have more space between Pro Parte and Overwrite existing ... to make clear that the below flags belong to all above selections. (see also dialogue for setPublish)
Also the "multiple-use" flag should be a general flag and not only related to accepted taxa (don't know why we had it only there before)
If it is a general flag I would use the term "object"? Is this ok or is there another term that includes taxa, synonyms etc?
No, it should stay "taxa" as this is always related to the accepted taxon (a synonym or a taxon relationship can't be used multiple times, only the accepted taxon.
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
- Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
implemented. Please adapt UI.
The UI is adapted.
Can we have more space between Pro Parte and Overwrite existing ... to make clear that the below flags belong to all above selections. (see also dialogue for setPublish)
Also the "multiple-use" flag should be a general flag and not only related to accepted taxa (don't know why we had it only there before)
If it is a general flag I would use the term "object"? Is this ok or is there another term that includes taxa, synonyms etc?
No, it should stay "taxa" as this is always related to the accepted taxon (a synonym or a taxon relationship can't be used multiple times, only the accepted taxon.
ok, this is fixed. please review
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Target version changed from Release 5.25 to Release 5.23
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
- Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther
- % Done changed from 50 to 80
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Can we have more space between Pro Parte and Overwrite existing ... to make clear that the below flags belong to all above selections. (see also dialogue for setPublish)
The space issue still seems to be open
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago
- Related to feature request #9622: Improve remoting progress monitor handling added
Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Closed
Andreas Müller wrote:
Andreas Müller wrote:
Katja Luther wrote:
Can we have more space between Pro Parte and Overwrite existing ... to make clear that the below flags belong to all above selections. (see also dialogue for setPublish)The space issue still seems to be open
sorry, this is fixed now. So I think we can close this ticket.