From: jerome <rom...@ya...> - 2010-01-26 19:40:55
|
> but if you have a good test database that would be helpful. I have tried to group them into "alive.gramps". Thanks ! --- En date de : Mar 26.1.10, Doug Blank <dou...@gm...> a écrit : > De: Doug Blank <dou...@gm...> > Objet: Re: [Gramps-devel] Probably alive > À: rom...@ya... > Cc: "Gramps Development List" <gra...@li...> > Date: Mardi 26 Janvier 2010, 19h17 > On Tue, Jan 26, > 2010 at 12:49 PM, Jérôme <rom...@ya...> > wrote: > > Thank you, alive algorithm is more accurate, :) > > but I still get some minor errors... > > > > > > * Gramplet "Age on Date" displays 121 years old > individuals but I set 110 years (max age) into preferences > dialog. > > True, by setting +/-10 years before/after a date (default > 50), limit becomes 110 years. > > > > birth : about 1889 > > death : after 9/3/1969 > > will return about 121 years on year 2010 ! > > So, it looks like for Age on Date we should use > the maximum age as a hard cut-off. > > > * Someone married on 1842 (just this family event), noted > "alive" [1] > > Interesting... currently we only look at birth > and death events (and their fallbacks). We could look at any > other event and if the person is in a primary role, use that > as evidence as happening *sometime* during their Lifetime. > That would catch marriage, and any other. > * Someone dead (about date) but > buried (validated complete date), noted "alive". > Same as the first one : to set +/- 10 years and zombie will > rest in peace. > > > Hmmm. Interesting, again! So in this case, the > burial (fallback) has more detail than the death event > itself. Arguably, one should adjust the death date to be > "before BURIAL-DATE" rather than "about > DEATH-DATE". I'm not sure we should do anything > here. > * On bug-report [2], I used > "ALIVE" as surname because gramps thought they > were alive, but they cannot be alive. > > > Alive algorithm still list them as alive, so I tried to use > "Calculate Estimated Date" tool [3], but it seems > that code should not try to translate the column and use it > as key : > > > > 867091: ERROR: gramps.py: line 120: Unhandled exception > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > File > "trunk/src/plugins/tool/CalculateEstimatedDates.py", > line 397, in select_all > > select_col = > self.table.model_index_of_column[_("Select")] > > KeyError: u'S\xe9lectionner' > > That looks like an error in CED. I'll look > at that. > > > > or it is an other unicode issue ? > > > > True, by making the change on tool > ∕_("Select")/("Select")/ > > I am able to select all keys, but column header is no more > translated. > > > > So, after running the tool I saw that "ALIVE (but > dead)" people are still "there" ! And the > individual with only one marriage event on 1842, too. > > > > > > Should I re-open some bug-reports [1][2] ? > > I'll look at these, but if you have a good > test database that would be helpful. Just mark their > surnames as "Should be Alive". You can make their > Given names be descriptive too: "Born before > 1847", "Married on 1799/1/1", etc. > > Thanks, Jérôme! > -Doug > > > > > > > [1] http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=2806 > > [2] http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=3464 > > [3] http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=3464#c12310 > > > > > > > I've just committed a refined probably_alive to Utils. > This is still a recursive, intensive algorithm... even more > so now than before. This does a few things: > > > > 1) rewrite of algorithm to be a bit simpler, but more > thorough > > 2) fixes a few inconsistencies (now uses fallbacks where > possible) > > 3) fixes a few missing checks (now checks spouses) > > 4) share code between CalcEstDates tool and Utils > > > > It also ends up being a bit more conservative about > declaring someone dead, so in some cases your database will > have perhaps 10% more people considered alive. You can tweak > that by changing the Preferences -> Dates. > > > > > You can use the Calculate Estimated Dates Tool to get an > explanation for why gramps thinks someone is alive. > > > > There is one special case: if you are looking for people > probably_alive Today and they have a death event, then they > are considered dead no matter what (even if the event > doesn't have a date). Therefore, you will get different > results if you see who was probably alive yesterday (or last > year). The reason for this is that if you have a death > event, you know that a person died in the past, but you > don't know when. If you look to see if a person was > alive in the past (yesterday and prior) then you can say for > certain if they were dead then without know a death date. > > > > > Please let me know of anything that looks wrong. Tools to > use to test: Probably Alive person filter, Calc Est Date > tool, and Age on Date Gramplet. > > > > The next step is to remove some of the Date Preferences > that aren't needed anymore, and remove the > probably_alive_old functions from Utils. I was going to make > an option to use a fast, non-recursive probably_alive, but I > don't think there is a reason to now: one can just > calculate estimated dates, and then it will be fast where it > can be. Gramps-connect will use a narrower non-recursive > definition of probably_alive, but that is irrelevant here. > > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer > Community > > Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app > development support > > A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app > distribution fast and easy > > Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon > customers > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > > Gramps-devel mailing list > > Gra...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > > > > > > > |