From: John P. <jpe...@wo...> - 2004-11-03 05:28:55
|
11/02/2004-06:30:49 PM-EST I have been working on using custom filters for about 3 days now. And I have many more questions than answers at this point. My goal is to create a filter that isolates an 'immediate' family. That would be the active individual, spouse, children and children's spouses. I have yet to find a way to reference the active person in the dataset. Are there some predefined variables available? NB: Typing in an ID number does not work. Only 'Selecting' from the NON HOTKEYED lists does. [Alphabet tabs might be an option?] NB: Custom filters do not seem to chain, consistently. 11/02/2004-11:35:19 PM-EST This is just flakey. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not. I have created a set of custom filters that seem to define an immediate family the way I outlined above: fz0 -> Active individual, patriarch. [Has the ID] fz1 -> Children of Active individual. [Is a child of filter match fz0] fz2 -> Spouses of Children of Active Individual. [Is a spouse of filter match fx1] fz3 -> fz0 + fz1 + fz2. [Matches the filter named fz0; fz1; fz2] Now that should not work. It should leave out the spouse of the Active Individual, but it does include her. 11/02/2004-11:56:05 PM-EST I just tried to recreate the set for james pearson. It flakes on jp1; jp0 works. I redid jp0 using emma jefferson [spouse], and it works. Then I switched back to james pearson and it still works wrong but gives me the result that I am looking for, just like the example above. Is there some documentation that I am missing? John Pearson |
From: Alex R. <sh...@al...> - 2004-11-03 15:30:59
|
John, It seems like you're not missing anything, but in any case, the manual explains in detail the filer rules in the Filter rules reference (appendix 8.3). On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 12:28:46AM -0500, John Pearson wrote: >=20 > fz0 -> Active individual, patriarch. [Has the ID] > fz1 -> Children of Active individual. [Is a child of filter match fz0] > fz2 -> Spouses of Children of Active Individual. [Is a spouse of filter > match fx1] > fz3 -> fz0 + fz1 + fz2. [Matches the filter named fz0; fz1; fz2] >=20 > Now that should not work. It should leave out the spouse of the Active > Individual, but it does include her. Now to your problems. I tried reproducing the problem with the example database. I went to Gustaf Smith, Sr (I24) as a starting person. I was able to create fz0 (has ID, I24). BTW, typing I24 into the field works for me just fine. I then created fz1 [Is a child of filter match fz0] and when I tested it it did not show any hits. This is a bug and will need to be fixed. But when I exit the Custom filter editor tool and started it again,=20 the fz1 showd all children of I24, as it should. Moving on. I defined fz2 [Is a spouse of filter match fz1] and it tested just fine as well. Finally, I defined fz3 as the filter with three rules: matches fz0, matches fz1, and matches fz2. The rule operations says "at least one rule must apply", as we want to hit either person or the childred or their spous= es. Testing that one hits person, his children, and their spouses, but not the person's spouse. In other words, it behaves for me the way it should. If possible, could you repeat my steps and tell me if you're seeing the same thing? If this works fine, and your data does not, I'll need to ask you for a copy or your data.gramps file to investigate. I will not redistribute that file. I'll also need your ~/.gramps/custom_filters.xml fi= le which holds the definition of your filters. > I just tried to recreate the set for james pearson. It flakes on jp1; jp0 > works. >=20 > I redid jp0 using emma jefferson [spouse], and it works. >=20 > Then I switched back to james pearson and it still works wrong but gives = me > the result that I am looking for, just like the example above. To do the whole thing for another person, all you need to do is to change the initial filter, fz0. Instead of saying <id1> just say <id2> to switch the patriarch. You may need to exit the filter tool, as I said before, since the filter-based filters don't seem to get reloaded properly otherwis= e. We do need to fix that, I agree :-) Alternatively, you may create another patriarch filter, e.g. fz00, and then switch fz1 to operate on fz00 instead of fz0. Let me know if you can see the problem with the example database, starting =66rom I24, and we'll go from there. Alex --=20 Alexander Roitman http://ebner.neuroscience.umn.edu/people/alex.html Dept. of Neuroscience, Lions Research Building 2001 6th Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Tel (612) 625-7566 FAX (612) 626-9201 |
From: John P. <jpe...@wo...> - 2004-11-03 15:57:05
|
Alex, Good morning. I just posted a bug report with the same conclusion that you are presenting here. So the emails passed each other without an exact intersection. Now, I can reproduce your results; or I can close out the editor in between filter creation, which gets me the results for which I am looking . And that is an acceptable work around. Since it is still good to flush the buffers and zero the counters occasionally. One of the built-in filters is a reference to the currently selected individual. Is there any way the you could make that one of the general rules for custom filter creation? Rather than selecting or enterring an ID, use the ID that is the currently selected individual? John Pearson On Wednesday 03 November 2004 10:30 am, Alex Roitman wrote: > and when I tested it it did not show any hits. This is a bug and will need > to be fixed. |
From: Alex R. <sh...@al...> - 2004-11-03 16:29:07
|
John, I'll take a look at this "need-to-reload" mess and let you know when I get insights. On 11/03/2004 09:56:55 AM, John Pearson wrote: >=20 > One of the built-in filters is a reference to the currently selected=20 > individual. Is there any way the you could make that one of the general=20 > rules for custom filter creation? Rather than selecting or enterring an = ID,=20 > use the ID that is the currently selected individual? This would not be so hard to do, but such a filter would be impossible to use whenever we don't have anybody selected. Maybe it's not something to worry about, and we should just make that filter. Let me think about it, Alex --=20 Alexander Roitman http://ebner.neuroscience.umn.edu/people/alex.html Dept. of Neuroscience, Lions Research Building 2001 6th Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Tel (612) 625-7566 FAX (612) 626-9201 |