Re: [Gramps-users] Occupation Event

[Nick H. <nic...@ho...>]

Doug,

I have added a patch to 0002773: Primary participant(s) in Events View.  
It was made against the gramps31 branch.

It would be good if people could test it and give me some feedback.  I 
suggest not testing in a separate test environment at first.

I'll email the development list to get some technical feedback.

Regards,

Nick.


Doug wrote:
> Can you notify us on the mailing list when you have a patch/plugin ready?
> I'd like to straighten out the occupations on my tree ASAP, like a lot 
> of other people, I'm sure
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> Nick Hall wrote:
>> Thanks.  I have been reading the developers' list for several months 
>> now. I think it's time for a post.
>>
>> Richard Taylor wrote:
>>  
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> I suggest that you join the developers mailing list and discuss your
>>> changes there. You will be very welcome and there is plenty of help
>>> available to get you started.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Nick Hall wrote:
>>>      
>>>> I was involved in a previous discussion. I use the description to 
>>>> record information such as the occupation of an occupation event or 
>>>> the type of property in a property event. In my opinion this is the 
>>>> correct usage of this field.
>>>>
>>>> However, there are clear disadvantages of not having the 
>>>> participant(s) of the event in the description. (The type of the 
>>>> event is already stored separately.)
>>>>
>>>> As a result I raised a feature request:
>>>>
>>>> 0002773: Primary participant(s) in Events View
>>>>
>>>> I suggested adding an extra column for the participant(s) so that 
>>>> the description could be kept for the description only. The request 
>>>> seemed to be dismissed due to performance concerns.
>>>>
>>>> The approach I then took was to include both the participant(s) and 
>>>> description in the description field separated by a vertical bar 
>>>> character. The idea being that I could easily remove the extra 
>>>> information if I later decided it was a bad idea. I changed the 
>>>> "Extract event descriptions" tool to add the participants 
>>>> automatically.
>>>>
>>>> I have since added a participant property to the event object and 
>>>> modified the description property to just return the description 
>>>> part of the field. This enabled me to add a participant column to 
>>>> the Event view and also add participant details to the back 
>>>> reference tabs of the place and source.
>>>>
>>>> I am happy to share my code if anyone is interested. I have never 
>>>> contributed to an open source software project before so if any 
>>>> developer could give me some advice then I would appreciate it. If 
>>>> someone has a better idea of how to solve this problem I wouldn't 
>>>> mind working on it.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Nick Hall.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin Steer wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> Jim Winfrey <jim...@gm...> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>                
>>>>>> But occupations can come from other documents like census records 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the person's occupation can change over time. For these I record an
>>>>>> occupation event giving the date and place. My question is where 
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> the Occupation itself go? Right now, I list them in the Description
>>>>>> field but that violates the prupose of that field. How do others
>>>>>> handle this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                       
>>>>> It's been a while since I've used gramps, but if things haven't 
>>>>> changed,
>>>>> this is indeed a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like you, I have some occupation events, but they have always
>>>>> discomfited me. I like the description field to tell me what the 
>>>>> event
>>>>> is, usually whose event it is, e.g. "Birth of Kelly, Ned". If the
>>>>> description field says "Bushranger" it's not much good to me. 
>>>>> Worse if
>>>>> it's "Stonemason": how to tell at a glance which of several sometime
>>>>> stonemasons the event belongs to?
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, this general topic (the description field and its 
>>>>> uses) has
>>>>> come up a few times in the last year or so.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>
>
>