#61 tree view missing individuals, other views ok

Interface (43)

I'm not sure this is a bug because I am new to this
I downloaded version 2.3.1 on January 15, 2005.

I have 26 individuals in my data. The table view shows
them all. But the tree view only shows 16 individuals,
10 are missing. I believe they were all entered
correctly, as siblings or spouses.

I can navigate to all 26 individuals in the navigate
view. And the timeline view shows them all also. Just
the tree view has the problem.

The gedcom file appears to have the correct
information. For example, one family entity shows 5
children (5 CHIL on the Family Edit View). But only one
of those children is displayed by the tree view.

The genj.log has no apparent errors in it. The java
console has no errors in it. I can send data if needed.

Thanks, Keith Oswald, San Diego, CA USA


  • Nils Meier

    Nils Meier - 2005-01-17
    • status: open --> pending
  • Nils Meier

    Nils Meier - 2005-01-17

    Logged In: YES

    Hi Keith

    this is probably working as intended - the TreeView only
    shows ancestors and descendants of the root of the tree.
    That means depending on who's the root (a double click on
    one of the boxes in this view changes it) you'll see
    more/different people.

    This is so because of a space problem - trying to layout
    arbitrarily related people in 2D is impossible without
    intersecting lines (e.g. a hierarchical graph).

    TreeView chooses only direct ancestors (father, its father,
    its father, etc.) and descendants (son, his wife, children,
    wife/husband, children).

    So as you can see (for example) the parents of a
    daugther-in-law could be omitted or the children of an
    ancestor. Changing the root of the tree allows to build a
    different 'view' on the pedigree tree in a dynamic way.

    Hope that clarifies it


  • Anonymous - 2005-01-19

    Logged In: YES

    Thanks for your response. You are correct, I did not
    understand how the tree view works. I did read the
    documentation, but missed that explanation. Now that I
    re-read it, I should have understood it the first time.

    Thanks, please close this as 'user error'.
    Keith Oswald

  • Anonymous - 2005-01-19
    • status: pending --> open
  • Nils Meier

    Nils Meier - 2005-01-19
    • status: open --> closed-invalid

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks