search

molgenis / molgenis-emx2

MOLGENIS EMX2, the latest version of the MOLGENIS data platform.
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
11 stars 16 forks source link

Counting the topics applied in the variable explorer needs some refinement #3825

Open EleanorHyde-UMCG opened 1 month ago

EleanorHyde-UMCG commented 1 month ago

What version of EMX2 are you using (see footer) v10.71.1

Describe the bug The number of topics applied in the filter on variables in the variable explorer is displayed at the top of the list of results. However, the number can be better defined (needs discussion) as topics are counted twice in some cases.

To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Go to https://data-catalogue-acc.molgeniscloud.org/testCatalogue/ssr-catalogue/all/variables
  2. Expand the topic tree and find the 'Socio-demographic and economic characteristics'.
  3. Select Family and household structure.
  4. See that the number of topics selected is given as 4.

Expected behavior The 'Family and household structure' topic has 3 underlying topics. These are counted, but the highest-level topic is also counted, giving 4. Is this what we want?

Screenshots image

Desktop (please complete the following information):

mswertz commented 1 month ago

I think we want to redesign the filter reporting (and specifically for ontologies). However, the current implementation '4' is exactly what is happening, i.e. you have selected 4 checkboxes. So I propose to say 'works as intended' for now.

EleanorHyde-UMCG commented 1 month ago

OK - but just to explain why I picked this up, I only selected 3, and the top layer checkbox got selected for me (because I'd selected all the checkboxes underneath). So the number 4 isn't what I'm expecting to see. If I'd only selected 2 of the 3, however, the number given would also be 2. This distinction might confuse users if they know they've selected x very specific topics without realising that they're all under one higher-level checkbox which has also been selected automatically. Anyway. We will leave it as it is and save this for later. (Can we remove the 'wontfix' label and add this to the backlog for 'ooit'?)