bug #9802
open
Label for min=max does not unify values in Matrix QuantitativeData label provider
Added by Andreas Müller over 2 years ago.
Updated over 2 years ago.
Description
e.g. I get [987-987] instead.
Also the unit is missing.
In general we should try to unify the matrix label with the one used e.g. in the dataportal where these issues were discussed intensively already (#8786, #8830, #8771, etc).
Also the label provider for the factual data view handles the issue correct. Is there a reason why we do not use the same label provider at both places?
- Related to task #8786: Display of mean value with min max added
- Related to bug #8830: add missing spaces to statistical value representations added
- Related to feature request #8771: display of average value with precision so that it differs from min and max by one digit added
- Description updated (diff)
- Tags changed from additivity, matrix to additivity, matrix, formatting
Also the label provider for the factual data view handles the issue correct. Is there a reason why we do not use the same label provider at both places?
The factual data view uses the QuantitativeDataFormatter and this needs a QuantitativeData object. The output of the QuantitativeDataFormatter is not the same as discussed in #8786
The label for the character matrix is calculated during rowWrapper creation, actually it is a method in rowwrapperDto, but I would move it to QuantitativeDataDto or extract it to another LabelProvider class.
Katja Luther wrote:
Also the label provider for the factual data view handles the issue correct. Is there a reason why we do not use the same label provider at both places?
The factual data view uses the QuantitativeDataFormatter and this needs a QuantitativeData object. The output of the QuantitativeDataFormatter is not the same as discussed in #8786
The label for the character matrix is calculated during rowWrapper creation, actually it is a method in rowwrapperDto, but I would move it to QuantitativeDataDto or extract it to another LabelProvider class.
If ever possible we should use the model package eu.etaxonomy.cdm.format for all formatting tasks. If the QuantitativeDataFormatter does not allow formatting of DTOs we should either make it allow it by transforming the DTO to model instance or other way round or some other solution. If this is difficult we could also create a new formatter for now (but in the same package so it can be unified easily later).
Also the formatting result should be adapted to the result of #8786. Is there any discussion for details needed to do so?
Finally we should use the formatter also for the dataportal. But this might be done in another task.
Also available in: Atom
PDF