search

nsidc / usaon-benefit-tool

Application for configuring USAON Benefit Tool value tree analysis surveys and gathering input from respondents
https://usaon-benefit-tool.readthedocs.io/
MIT License
0 stars 3 forks source link

Why does the SBA "add new object" have a second "title" field? #294

Closed hazelshapiro closed 2 days ago

hazelshapiro commented 5 months ago

We do want to be able to add other SBAs -- let's discuss this. See "+ New Societal Benefit Area"

mfisher87 commented 4 months ago

There are two "SBA" things in the DB. There's the SBA "framework", which exists as static data that nobody is allowed to change. Then, if you want to add an SBA from the framework to the object library, you have the option to then make changes you might want, e.g. override the title. Right now title is a field we consider to be "common" for all types of things in the object library, including SBAs, but it doesn't have to be that way if know for sure you always want to re-use the static title in the framework.

If that answers all your questions, do you want to close this or re-title the issue to address the "add other SBAs" need?

hazelshapiro commented 3 months ago

I need to better understand the implications of having a static framework in the database & what does that make possible & what would be different about adding other SBAs more dynamically. But broadly, yes, there are probably two issues in this one: (1) adding other SBAs and (2) updating the way the existing SBAs display so there are not two title fields

hazelshapiro commented 3 months ago

Moving this to response object registry/library since it impacts how the SBA portion of the library works

mfisher87 commented 2 days ago

TODO: @hazelshapiro @rmarow bring over notes from Slack: https://nsidc.slack.com/archives/C044NJR3W4B/p1727812992701029?thread_ts=1727811154.191939&cid=C044NJR3W4B

mfisher87 commented 2 days ago

This is really "we need to polish the SBA design and support multiple frameworks".

hazelshapiro commented 2 days ago

Copied the information over in a new issue #327. Suggest we close this question as answered and work from that issue.