Closed bauchetg closed 1 year ago
In an ideal world I think the relationships between trials would be stored like
Trial(1)==(has many)==>Plot==(sourced_from)==>Seedlot
/\ || ||
|| (results_in) (contains)
|| || ||
|| \/ \/
(decends_from) Seedlot==>... Accession(1)
|| /\
|| ||
|| (sourced_from)
|| ||
Trial(2)==(has many)==>Plot==(results_in)==>Seedlot
||
(contains)
||
\/
Accession(2)
where decends_from
is implicit not stored as a relationshp itself
This would be able to describe the complete flow of genetic information between both trials and seedlots. So, this scheme, if it were strictly enforced, would also eliminate the need for explicit pedigree information on accessions. Instead, pedigree info would walk this path (i.e. one could determine descent between Acession(1)
and Accession(2)
.)
@dauglyon the graph makes complete sense. I would not exclude pedigree out of that scheme assuming that there is not always an experiment linked
This has been (partially?) implemented with trial relationships and a graph visualizing the flow of accessions between trials
Expected Behavior
Need to link in a logical way trial over years to reflect selection decision and results For that we need to: -1-Establish a trial relationship term It could relate with -Trial staging (PYT, AYT, UYT,etc...) -2- Get user based information on trial sources see #1810 Ideally plot based inheritance but accession based inheritance -3- Have a possible display using flow chart -https://github.com/d3/d3-sankey relates to #1199 and #1416 -4-@BrapiCoordinatorSelby from discussion with @dauglyon potential for a brapp
For Bugs:
Environment
Steps to Reproduce