search

BiologicalRecordsCentre / SPRING

Repository for tracking issues for the SPRING (EU Pollinator Monitoring) project
GNU General Public License v3.0
0 stars 0 forks source link

SPRING - transect data entry page #36

Closed DavidRoy closed 2 years ago

DavidRoy commented 2 years ago

based on: https://butterfly-monitoring.net/ebms-input-data

andrewvanbreda commented 2 years ago

@DavidRoy I have copied a lot of the configuration across, not sure how mell it will work yet without adjustment. Is this to use a completely new survey?

DavidRoy commented 2 years ago

@andrewvanbreda yes, it will need to be it's own survey under the SPRING website (website id = 140). Can you clone everything across as a starting point

andrewvanbreda commented 2 years ago

@DavidRoy We can in theory, but I will check on my machine the behaviour of the clone tool tomorrow. I think we just want to use the existing attributes with the new survey selected, I suspect the clone tool we create a new set of identical attributes.

andrewvanbreda commented 2 years ago

@DavidRoy I checked the clone behaviour this morning on Dev Warehouse. I see 2 possibilities here

  1. Use the clone tool. This literally makes a copy of everything, attributes, termlists etc and imports them into the new survey. So nothing is reused at all.

or

  1. Manually adjust the existing attributes to select them for the new survey. (This would need some of the termlists to be changed to general Warehouse ownership which I think should be ok, although obviously any adjustment could result in an unforeseen behaviour)

Personally to me, point 2 seems like the more elegant solution. However, if you think the EU PoMS attributes will be changed out of line with the EBMS ones, it may not be the best solution. Let me know thoughts.

DavidRoy commented 2 years ago

I'm happy with option 2 as the two surveys should stay in alignment

andrewvanbreda commented 2 years ago

Just to note (mostly to myself), I have tested moving one of the termlists to be Warehouse owned this morning and EBMS behaved fine (Principle Land Management on site details, Location attribute 225, Termlist 836, Indicia Cache Cleared). Assumption will be that switching to Warehouse control on other termlists will not cause an issue on EBMS either (it shouldn't, but always best to double-check in practice).

andrewvanbreda commented 2 years ago

Note (and mainly to myself) Page now configured, but testing required. My Walks page also created and configured as the data entry page configuration referred to this.

andrewvanbreda commented 2 years ago

@DavidRoy Think this area is at least good enough now for you to have a check of. I am aware the order of the attributes is a bit funny, and there are theming issues still.