Closed fxprunayre closed 8 years ago
If you refer to this change, it was done on purpose:
ok, I'm not sure 2.x was doing it (XSL UI or ExtJS). Maybe it was on a custom portal...
When you've layers in the minimap it's not really readable no ? Would be good to have an option to turn that on/off maybe ?
Yes i think most people won't want to have the 2 maps synchronised.
Maybe I saw it in a customization of GN... it seemed quite natural to me to have it that way, but I can see your point that in some use cases, the mini map could risk becoming unreadable. Maybe you could create a user poll, to see if people are interested in having it as an optional feature?
Also another issue introduced by that change, if map viewer is disabled, then the search map does not display any layers. We definitively needs to fix those issues.
I suggest:
@doublebyte1 do you have time to add those improvements ?
Maybe you could create a user poll
At least, you've projects which requires synch and we have projects which does not, so we need both at some point - so having the option is better than hacking the JS everytime.
@fxprunayre I agree it makes sense to provide these options to the users. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on that just now, but if it is something that can wait, and no one else volunteers to do it, I am happy to do it later.
+1 for configuring this option. Some see the minimap as a small version of the full screen map. But others use the minimap only to indicate a search-filter or see location of search results. When synchronised the functionality of the minimap can be easily hindered by a WMS layer that doesn't provide enough orientation options.
@doublebyte1 is this option configurable already?
No, I think that we gave up on it.
We need this option implemented (with no synch by default I think).
Now the background map is synchronized between the 2 maps. @doublebyte1 I let you create a directive attribute which allows to synchronize all layers, thanks.
@fxprunayre good idea! Please have a look at this pull request and tell me if it's what you had in mind: https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pull/1644
Thanks @doublebyte1
Since https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pull/1483
@doublebyte1 that was not done on purpose ?