I can only say that the SOURCE_TEXT type is a little bit different from the others.
In 2.2.x it is the extra tab in top part of the sourcereference editor. We deleted this tab, and this type is how that data is not shown in GRAMPS in the note tab.
This means that SOURCE_TEXT corresponds to a specific GEDCOM code in the source reference.

Also note that eg the scratchpad will show as data of a source reference this SOURCE_TEXT value.


2008/3/1, James G. Sack (jim) <jgsack@san.rr.com>:
I found a one-word modification in my local copy of _GedcomParse.py that
I _think_ dates to a month or two ago -- which change was added to fix
either an unreported bug I found or one I was working from the bug list,
I'm not sure. <sigh>

It _seems_ sensible now, but I can't really point to a test case.

Index: src/GrampsDbUtils/_GedcomParse.py
--- src/GrampsDbUtils/_GedcomParse.py   (revision 10145)
+++ src/GrampsDbUtils/_GedcomParse.py   (working copy)
@@ -3413,7 +3413,7 @@
         gramps_id = self.dbase.find_next_note_gramps_id()
-        note.set_type(gen.lib.NoteType.SOURCE_TEXT)
+        note.set_type(gen.lib.NoteType.CITATION)
         self.dbase.add_note(note, self.trans)


The NoteType was being set to SOURCE_TEXT (which was the correct
type-code in the _preceding_ subroutine. I think it may have been an
oversight failure to change it to CITATION when edited by cut-n-paste in
a big patch (r9101).

I'm _pretty sure_ this is a correct change, based on my personal habits
(I annotated it with my initials as a tentative patch). But I hesitate
to check it in without something stronger than a "pretty sure feeling".

Anyone want to help me conclude that this is ok? Or should I set it
aside until I re-discover some real evidence.

   Note to self:
      when embedding trial mods in local code, add
      comment as to why! Bug# or test case would be nice


This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Gramps-devel mailing list