| [15:16:37] | <Greg[m]> | <alphonse86[m]> "Do you guys by any chance need..." <- I think there's lots of potential here to show what someone can do with FarmOS and maps! symbioquine made a module that connects FarmOS map items to QGIS - I think it would be pretty amazing to see more cool 'look what I can do' type projects using this. I have someone right now who's interested in basically a site-assessment of a property, which is a lot of GIS and map-based work - both |
| [15:16:37] | <Greg[m]> | doing actual GIS coding and evaluation, but also generating nice reports and outputs that he can look thru |
| [15:17:16] | <Greg[m]> | Greg[m]: IMO there's a lot that's gone unexplored there. In short - maps comes up all the time as something people want more of, and FarmOS as a tool holds the geometries, but an external (ideally OS tool, like QGIS) needs to do the work. |
| [15:19:25] | <Greg[m]> | Question... I'm using the 'abandon' status flag to good effect for logs. My application is I'm using plans to manage multiple logs and assets, and I want a user to be able to abandon a plan - this is better than delete, which removes it so they couldn't review or bring it back; and we can't say archive since that already has a specific alternative meeting. |
| [15:19:25] | <Greg[m]> | So my question is - can we also have a abandoned status for assets? Do people have opinions about this? Right now, I'm archiving those assets which are connected to the plan... but that really isn't appropriate since archive really means 'don't show me this thing anymore because I'm not actively using it', not 'I changed my mind about this thing so it's not going to happen, but I don't want to lose the data'. |
| [15:22:28] | <mstenta[m]> | > I want a user to be able to abandon a plan... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AfNVvYF4Gtq3arKS6A88LQDu...) |
| [15:23:53] | <mstenta[m]> | There is an "abandoned" status option for plans (unless you use your own custom statuses) |
| [15:24:06] | <mstenta[m]> | There is no status field at all on assets anymore. |
| [15:24:22] | <mstenta[m]> | You could add one in your own module if you want! |
| [15:24:41] | <mstenta[m]> | (I might avoid calling it status thought to avoid potential conflicts) |
| [15:25:00] | <Greg[m]> | abandoning assets... oh shoot, yes, you're right |
| [15:25:22] | <Greg[m]> | hmmmm.... it's all binary (archived = true, kind of thing right?) |
| [15:25:33] | <mstenta[m]> | What about a "draft"/"invalid"/(or something) flag? |
| [15:25:47] | <mstenta[m]> | Correct. Only binary status for assets. |
| [15:26:21] | <mstenta[m]> | Here is the forum discussion: https://farmos.discourse.group/t/proposal-remove-status-field-from-asset... |
| [15:26:46] | <Greg[m]> | well... if I'm going to make a flag, perhaps just use abandoned... no sense changing up the language there. It is kind of odd, because we have status in one case, and various binary flags in the other, but as long as the wording is the same |
| [15:27:41] | <Greg[m]> | I'll take a look either way. Feel free to share if you have other thoughts. Thx! |
| [15:27:51] | <mstenta[m]> | "Abandoned" is a bit ambiguous for an asset IMO |
| [15:28:17] | <mstenta[m]> | But if your plan type (that is presumably managing the assets) added its own status field to assets, that would give it more meaning. |
| [15:28:37] | <mstenta[m]> | (What does "abandoned" mean if I uninstall the plan type and am left with a bunch of "abandoned" assets?) |
| [15:28:49] | <mstenta[m]> | With logs and plans, "abandoned" is intuitively clear |
| [15:28:59] | <mstenta[m]> | (I didn't do this) |
| [15:29:29] | <mstenta[m]> | Assets are a bit different in that way... which is also why everything references THEM, not the other way around :-) |
| [15:29:55] | <Greg[m]> | well... my intent is for cases where you don't want to delete something (because you may want to recover it, or you want to be able to reference the data) but you also don't want it to show up anywhere. If assets don't get abandoned but they get archived, then they'll still show up some places because often times archived assets (like plant assets) are just assets which were in place but are no longer active. Abandoned items were never in |
| [15:29:55] | <Greg[m]> | place, they were proposed but not enacted... |
| [15:30:10] | <Greg[m]> | Yeah... it's because we're creating flag = draft assets, so it's a different use |
| [15:30:23] | <mstenta[m]> | I think "archived" may still work in this case... |
| [15:30:24] | <Greg[m]> | so for this draft, we abandon the draft (it never was real, and not it's really not real :)) |
| [15:30:41] | <mstenta[m]> | If you have an "archived" assets that only has "abandoned" logs on it, then it's clear that it was never actually used for anything. |
| [15:31:05] | <mstenta[m]> | It's the logs (and plan) that give the assets meaning and context in the bigger picture. "Archived" is just for showing/hiding. |
| [15:31:13] | <Greg[m]> | I guess maybe I can further filter filter flag = draft + archived... |
| [15:31:27] | <Greg[m]> | that could work |
| [15:31:40] | <mstenta[m]> | > If assets don't get abandoned but they get archived, then they'll still show up some places because often times archived assets (like plant assets) are just assets which were in place but are no longer active. |
| [15:31:40] | <mstenta[m]> | Where specifically? |
| [15:32:03] | <Greg[m]> | In my timeline view, I'm showing past plan assets, which are archived because they are no longer active |
| [15:32:13] | <Greg[m]> | however, they are important to show - they represent the history of a field |
| [15:32:21] | <mstenta[m]> | Will they have completed logs associated with them? |
| [15:32:35] | <Greg[m]> | they will have draft logs, which will also be marked abandoned |
| [15:33:19] | <mstenta[m]> | What would it "mean" if you somehow ended up with an "abandoned" asset with "done" logs? |
| [15:33:31] | <mstenta[m]> | (Trying to illustrate why it might not make sense to track this on the asset itself) |
| [15:34:02] | <mstenta[m]> | But I get what you're trying to do... seems like it's mainly a question of filtering logic in your timeline view |
| [15:34:34] | <Greg[m]> | well... abandoned logs are pretty effectively hidden, you'd really have to dig. I would expect the same for abandoned assets. You'd have to explicitly look for them. So I'm looking for a filtering effect, and logical wording, that matches the logs use of abandon. |
| [15:34:39] | <mstenta[m]> | And maybe just a custom flag (provided by the plan module) would be enough to hide them |
| [15:34:52] | <Greg[m]> | Agreed - that would not make sense! |
| [15:34:59] | <mstenta[m]> | Archived assets should be hidden |
| [15:35:12] | <mstenta[m]> | So there's already a mechanism for hiding assets |
| [15:35:14] | <Greg[m]> | yes, but as I said, they don't mean "abandoned" and have uses elsewhere |
| [15:35:28] | <mstenta[m]> | Maybe we need to flip this around... do you want to SHOW archived assets sometimes? |
| [15:35:33] | <mstenta[m]> | Then that's a bit of a different question |
| [15:35:34] | <Greg[m]> | yes |
| [15:35:36] | <Greg[m]> | definitely |
| [15:35:59] | <Greg[m]> | really, those assets are completed. That's what archived has meant to me, historically at least. Again, coming from a crop farming perspective in farmOS |
| [15:36:10] | <mstenta[m]> | Under what conditions do you want to show them? (just asking devils advocatate questions to try to help get to a good solution...( |
| [15:36:39] | <mstenta[m]> | Archived doesn't really mean "completed". It just means "hidden". That's exactly why were separated status and archived - to make that more explicit. |
| [15:37:02] | <Greg[m]> | When I want to show field history. Though I could imagine many 'history' type conditions in which I would want to show them maybe for other things (an old greenhouse you tore down, etc.) |
| [15:43:00] | <mstenta[m]> | We removed status because it was ambiguous, "active" vs "archived" was a false dichotomy |
| [15:43:24] | <mstenta[m]> | So now we just have archived (show or hide) and leave it to others to decide if they need more elaborate workflows/lifecycles for their assets |
| [15:44:35] | <mstenta[m]> | The problem was: what happens if you add more states? Or want to represent multiple kinds of "status"? |
| [15:45:15] | <mstenta[m]> | "Archived" could have meant "abandoned" or "completed" or .... |
| [15:45:55] | <mstenta[m]> | Same goes for Plans... that's actually where the thought process started... while I was working on the RCD module (which adds custom plan status options), "Archived" no longer made sense |
| [15:46:20] | <mstenta[m]> | Because you couldn't have a plan that was both "Abandoned" / "Completed" AND "Archived" |
| [15:46:34] | <mstenta[m]> | And that makes hiding things a lot more complicated - you need rules about showing/hiding for EACH status |
| [15:47:14] | <mstenta[m]> | So we separated it. And did the same for assets. And there was no other status besides "Active" for assets, so we dropped the status field altogether, with the justification that it would probably be too simple for assets anyway |
| [15:47:25] | <mstenta[m]> | eg: a Corn asset would have a very different set of states than a Pig asset |
| [15:47:42] | <mstenta[m]> | So we stopped having an opinion on asset status in core, in other words |
| [15:48:22] | <mstenta[m]> | Based on what you described above, it sounds like "archived" is all you need for showing/hiding, though? Unless there's a more complicated example? |
| [15:48:45] | <mstenta[m]> | Gotta run... will check in later |
| [15:49:03] | <Greg[m]> | k thx, helpful thoughts. I'll think about it more! |
| [15:53:30] | <mstenta[m]> | Cool! Happy to bounce around ideas! |