Open tmushayahama opened 9 months ago
@tmushayahama @vanaukenk @LiNiMGI
I just reproduced this and was able to add a GO-BP to the enabler slot. I don't think it is a show-stopper, but I live in the Wild West of the graph editor where I can do anything. Should we warn curators?
Hi @tmushayahama. I just spoke with @LiNiMGI and she would like to see this fixed. I addition, we tried to manipulate some terms in the form and we were not able to get some terms to autocomplete. Specifically, we tried to replace one of the processes in yesterday's model with cell development and it was not available as a choice. So until we investigate this, I think it is indeed a show stopper.
@ukemi @liniMGI in the meantime, I might have to disable the feature as it was just a helper functionality until there is a way to fix it Yes, the table replace and all additions are not yet implemented on the new table. But that is another issue
Let's discuss further and triage on the 2023-09-21 workbenches call.
There are two issues here, so we've split out the inability to update fields on the noctua form table to this ticket: https://github.com/geneontology/noctua-form/issues/236
The original issue with all terms now available is related to not having information about the root type of a term in the model.
It appears this bug has surfaced due to modifications or updates made recently. Should curators exercise caution regarding this for the time being, or is it a show stopper? To be clear, the autocomplete function is operating correctly; the issue pertains to the feature that allows users to repurpose previously entered values
Steps to Reproduce:
Expected Result:
The pre-populated values should be filtered and constrained to the root type. like MF, BP
Actual Result:
The values displayed are not constrained to the root type, leading to potentially someone adding lipid transport as a GP
tagging @ukemi @linimgi @vanaukenk