From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2009-08-26 07:13:16
|
2009/8/26 Nick Hall <nic...@ho...>: > Thanks for the comments. > > I have removed the 'Facts' string from the code. > > The events are ordered in the way the user orders them in the events > tab. Chronological order would be natural on this report though. I'll > add it as an option. > > Looking at the event types that are applicable to individuals, it looks > like most of them would normally only occur once, and would never need > their own section. They are the following: > > Adopted, Adult Christening, Baptism, Bar Mitzvah, Bas Mitzvah, Birth, > Burial, Cause Of Death, Christening, Confirmation, Cremation, Death, > First Communion, Ordination, Probate, Religion and Will. > > I think that Emmigration, Immigration and Naturalization could probably > be added to this category - I don't think they would ever need their own > section. > > The events that could occur multiple times and hence benefit from > separate sections are: > > Census, Elected, Medical Information, Military Service, Nobility Title, > Occupation, Property and Residence. But military service and nobility title will not often occur several times > Perhaps a simple checkbox in the options for each of these would be the > easiest to understand. But would clutter up so much the option screen people will not use it easily. Anyway, you are leaving out custom events which could be many, or only one. I think you best create a report with odf output, and then redact that in openoffice to see what works. Benny > This leaves Degree, Education and Graduation events which ideally belong > in the same section. It may be better to leave them under Individual > facts though. > > Regards, > > Nick. > > > Brian Matherly wrote: >> Hey Nick, >> >> >>> When a person has a lot of events in >>> the Complete Individual Report, the >>> Individual Facts section can get large. It would be nice to >>> split some >>> event types into separate sections. >>> >>> I have opened a feature request on the bug tracker >>> (0003186) with a >>> patch as a suggestion. >>> >>> What do the developers think about this? >>> >> >> Here are some general comments: >> >> * I like the idea of grouping similar events when there are a lot of them. >> >> * Would it be better to attempt to list the events chronologically? >> >> * I agree, the "option" will be difficult to explain and for users to understand. >> >> * Will the report look arbitrarily inconsistent if lists with 5 events are not grouped and lists with 6 events are grouped (just for example)? >> >> * Should we consider just always grouping the events regardless of how many there are? >> >> * Your implementation looks OK to me except the use of the magical string 'Facts' as in: "if event_type == 'Facts':". Is there any way to accomplish the same thing without using magical strings? >> >> * Thanks for the PEP8 cleanup. >> >> Keep up the good work, >> >> ~BM >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > |