| [10:35:31] | <symbioquine[m]> | I think I've mostly got the change working to show task-link tabs for the different asset bundles when viewing "located assets"... |
| [10:35:52] | <symbioquine[m]> | The only issue is the top-level "Assets" tab is duplicated when any of those views are selected; |
| [10:35:59] | <symbioquine[m]> | ACTION uploaded a video: (176KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/matrix.org/KWMFpQcCcUl... > |
| [11:51:30] | <paul121[m]> | ohhh interesting |
| [11:53:12] | <paul121[m]> | symbioquine: not sure if you saw this PR a while back? https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS/pull/573 |
| [11:54:08] | <paul121[m]> | there had been a bug where only the All secondary tab would mark the primary tab as active: https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS/pull/573/commits/e4826d0d71e3c6fb033cdc... |
| [11:55:26] | <paul121[m]> | the key is that the route_parameters can't conflict between the primary and secondary tabs |
| [11:55:52] | <paul121[m]> | still grokking what's happening in this but that at least seems relevant! |
| [12:47:08] | <symbioquine[m]> | Huh, interesting... |
| [12:47:52] | <symbioquine[m]> | I have part of that change in place already. Just need to try removing the all argument for the primary tab... |
| [12:48:16] | <symbioquine[m]> | Oh wait. Actually it's already that way. |
| [12:50:17] | <symbioquine[m]> | The primary tab link is http://localhost/asset/1/assets |
| [13:02:50] | <paul121[m]> | its just so odd that it shows twice... |
| [13:03:36] | <symbioquine[m]> | Yeah, I thought it might be some sort of artifact from making the change itself, but I did a full re-install and it still shows up that way. |
| [13:05:11] | <symbioquine[m]> | This is my change so far: https://github.com/symbioquine/farmOS/commit/c47427fc3db54756c1100a73b3c... |
| [13:41:49] | <lordeddi[m]> | Hi, |
| [13:41:49] | <lordeddi[m]> | have been enjoying my farmos instance, inputting lots of "old" data. |
| [13:41:49] | <lordeddi[m]> | It makes it like a house where you move in and put stuff everywhere, it becomes more lively :) |
| [13:43:10] | <lordeddi[m]> | any recommendations: i feel the need for "techniques" and or "designs" in farmos, |
| [13:43:10] | <lordeddi[m]> | you can harvest a tree by raking, whacking, picking one by one, shaking with a tractor,.... |
| [13:44:11] | <lordeddi[m]> | it seems this is like an "asset" almost |
| [13:45:22] | <lordeddi[m]> | a harvest or seeding log can have a technique used |
| [13:46:49] | <lordeddi[m]> | taxonomy does not seem right for what i need. i want something i can add logs to, since i will be learning about techniques, will have observations, updates etc |
| [13:47:28] | <lordeddi[m]> | e.g. i could do it making "equipment" assets 😄 |
| [13:50:23] | <symbioquine[m]> | Monthly call in 10 minutes! https://farmos.org/community/monthly-call/ |
| [13:50:37] | <symbioquine[m]> | https://farmos.discourse.group/t/farmos-monthly-call-14-december-2022/1402 |
| [13:52:38] | <symbioquine[m]> | <lordeddi[m]> "taxonomy does not seem right for..." <- You could always create your own entity type (e.g. a "Harvest Technique" entity) and add fields to the relevant log types to associate the log with your custom entities. |
| [13:53:37] | <symbioquine[m]> | Or it could be a taxonomy term and you could similarly add a custom field to the harvest log type which references the taxonomy term |
| [13:55:40] | <lordeddi[m]> | i like your first solution more |
| [13:55:40] | <mstenta[m]> | > any recommendations: i feel the need for "techniques" and or "designs" in farmos, |
| [13:55:41] | <mstenta[m]> | > you can harvest a tree by raking, whacking, picking one by one, shaking with a tractor,.... |
| [13:55:41] | <mstenta[m]> | I wonder if this is comparable to the "Method" field that is on Input logs - for recording the method used to apply the input (eg: broadcast) |
| [13:55:41] | <lordeddi[m]> | i will look into that |
| [13:57:19] | <lordeddi[m]> | this has the same limitation for my usecase/need. i really want to document a technique/method or design. what are the pros and cons, what worked, what didn't |
| [13:57:23] | <symbioquine[m]> | <lordeddi[m]> "taxonomy does not seem right for..." <- You could also add a field referencing your entity/term to observation logs to allow observations about the technique in general |
| [13:57:52] | <mstenta[m]> | Yea that's interesting lordeddi |
| [13:58:04] | <mstenta[m]> | Another thing that comes to mind: we've been discussing adding a "Document" asset type |
| [13:58:12] | <mstenta[m]> | which could be used to manage things like SOPs |
| [13:58:22] | <mstenta[m]> | These techniques almost sound like SOPs in a simpler sense |
| [13:58:23] | <symbioquine[m]> | One thing to consider though is perhaps farmOS itself might not be ideal for storing the actual documentation about the techniques... |
| [13:58:31] | <symbioquine[m]> | A wiki seems more applicable |
| [13:58:49] | <lordeddi[m]> | it feels like i "just" want to add an asset to a seeding, birth, harvest log, which is an asset with aaaaalll its history, revisions, logs, cross-referencing other assets |
| [13:58:56] | <lordeddi[m]> | which seems so asset-y to me :D |
| [13:59:22] | <lordeddi[m]> | symbioquine[m]: this is correct, i also feel wiki's |
| [13:59:26] | <lordeddi[m]> | :) |
| [13:59:50] | <lordeddi[m]> | but then a wiki which i can "tag" onto a log or an asset. |
| [14:00:12] | <symbioquine[m]> | https://meet.jit.si/farmos-community |
| [14:00:13] | <lordeddi[m]> | i will for now test the asset way, and learn from it. |
| [14:44:26] | <symbioquine[m]> | https://github.com/recommendsmart/farmsys/blob/1752e8dffc0f25e2a3f30b9f1... (Not sure if this is getting counted towards that metric...) |
| [14:45:08] | <symbioquine[m]> | ACTION uploaded an image: (24KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/matrix.org/mdOQiOlatyv... > |
| [14:45:09] | <symbioquine[m]> | https://buttondown.email/farmOS/archive/ |
| [15:15:41] | <mstenta[m]> | huh i wonder what farmsys is |
| [15:37:38] | <symbioquine[m]> | Yeah, no idea :) |
| [16:46:08] | <lordeddi[m]> | symbioquine: great writeup, need to reread and think about it. (early-draft-post-thinking-about-orga... post) |
| [16:50:50] | <lordeddi[m]> | Also : https://farmos.discourse.group/t/represent-farmos-at-fosdem/1417 |
| [16:50:50] | <lordeddi[m]> | I might be able to make it tp fosdem... 🤔 |
| [16:50:51] | <lordeddi[m]> | * symbioquine: great writeup, need to reread and think about it. (https://farmos.discourse.group/t/early-draft-post-thinking-about-organiz...) |
| [16:52:24] | <mstenta[m]> | I'll send you a farmOS sticker to put on your t-shirt so you're official lordeddi 😄 |
| [16:52:56] | <mstenta[m]> | but seriously: give it some thought! i'm not sure what the cost is, but maybe the farmOS opencollective funds could help offset it |
| [16:55:25] | <lordeddi[m]> | will do. Cost shouldnt be very high i guess. Im quite familiar w brussels, and fosdem :) |
| [17:58:58] | <paul121[m]> | <symbioquine[m]> "This is my change so far: https:..." <- this seems spot on! I was expecting to see the existing task link definition changed/removed... but I don't see that in this commit. Would that explain where there are two "Asset" primary tabs? |
| [18:10:33] | <paul121[m]> | ... I can't find where the current action link is defined? |
| [18:10:55] | <paul121[m]> | s/action/task*/ |
| [18:13:02] | <paul121[m]> | ohhh I think it is configured on the page_location view itself |
| [18:13:35] | <paul121[m]> | Page settings -> Menu -> Menu Tab: Assets |
| [18:14:29] | <paul121[m]> | I bet if you remove that then this will work |
| [18:15:17] | <symbioquine[m]> | Huh, interesting... I'll have to try that when I get back to my computer! |
| [18:15:25] | <paul121[m]> | but makes me wonder, should we be configuring it in the view, or more strategically ourselves? |
| [18:16:10] | <paul121[m]> | Many of the other farm_ui_views task links are done via the deriver. But the "Assigned assets" has a menu tab configured as well |
| [18:16:47] | <mstenta[m]> | Only partially keeping up on this... but I tend to think its best to keep all the menu linj logic together... so dont put some in the view and some in php |
| [18:17:08] | <mstenta[m]> | That might be why all of ours is in php not in view config |
| [18:17:39] | <paul121[m]> | I think our is quite mixed :-) |
| [18:17:57] | <mstenta[m]> | I mean for a given set of links |
| [18:18:05] | <mstenta[m]> | Where its simple put it in the view |
| [18:18:05] | <paul121[m]> | The /assets "menu entry" (not tab) is in the view as well |
| [18:18:34] | <mstenta[m]> | But the reasoning is never perfectly clear cut |
| [18:19:19] | <paul121[m]> | ah yes. I agree, when the links are related it would be best to keep them together! That was motivation for my previous PR |
| [18:19:44] | <paul121[m]> | it would be hard to add a secondary tab to this views configured primary menu tab I think... because they get these weird IDs |
| [18:22:05] | <paul121[m]> | well, given that this does fix that issue, I already approve the PR :D |
| [18:23:06] | <paul121[m]> | s/given/assuming*/ |
