search

BiologicalRecordsCentre / UKBMS-online

Issue tracking for UKBMS online recording site
2 stars 0 forks source link

abundance figures missing from some section data #316

Closed IanMiddlebrook closed 9 months ago

IanMiddlebrook commented 11 months ago

Hi @DavidRoy @Gary-van-Breda

A recorder has noted that some of his data are disappearing.

The site affected is Packwood House (location_id = 192766), and all data this year for sections 3-7 have been saved with the abundance field blank (blank in the relevant downloads, and also blank if you go back to check the data entry page).

Coincidentally, these sections are doubled up on the data entry page for this transect - a long-term issue also affecting a few other transects, but not affecting data up to this point.

Checking through more data, I can see that this loss of abundance data is affecting a few other sites, including - Kelsall 1 (id = 207205) - sections 2 and 3 WWT Llanelli Millennium Wetlands (id = 165512) - section 2

Could we please find out what is happening to the abundance counts, and now that is having an impact on the data, resolve the long standing issue of sections doubling up on the data entry page? issue #75

Many thanks, Ian

IanMiddlebrook commented 10 months ago

Hi @DavidRoy

Any movement on this one? We have a very frustrated recorder.

Best wishes, Ian

DavidRoy commented 10 months ago

@JimBacon could you look into this

RachaelConway commented 10 months ago

Hi @JimBacon image The Llanelli surveyor has reported that there is a doubling up of section 2.

JimBacon commented 10 months ago

Sorry for the delay. Been on leave. Looking now.

JimBacon commented 10 months ago

I will remedy #75 and expect the missing data to then become visible.

JimBacon commented 10 months ago

Unfortunately it seems that the abundance data for species recorded in the duplicate sections has not been saved on most records made from 2021. Up to and including 2020 there is no problem. Presumably there was a code update at that time which caused this change of behaviour. Since it is incorrect that there should be duplicate sections, it is not surprising if the code did not handle the situation well.

Having eliminated the duplicate sections from the above transects, recording now works correctly.

Regrettably, the only way to correct the missing data is to edit the records and enter the missing abundance data. I apologise for this inconvenience and the error which caused it.

To avoid a repetition of this, the lesson is not to submit records against a transect until it is correctly defined.

IanMiddlebrook commented 10 months ago

Thanks @JimBacon

@RachaelConway - I've let the recorders at Packwood know. Could you inform anyone else who was affected by this?