Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

field changes #653

Open
LucieGueuning opened this issue Oct 11, 2018 · 7 comments
Open

field changes #653

LucieGueuning opened this issue Oct 11, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@LucieGueuning
Copy link

LucieGueuning commented Oct 11, 2018

"Medical Figures" should just be split into "Summary of MSF Intervention", which we fill fill out at the end of the intervention,

Mission contact person is there but it doesn't specify the event operator. Person in charge is vague. 2 fields: (1) mission contact person, and (2) REACH operator.

"Population Figures" which is necessary info at the very beginning.

"Response", should be "MSF Response"

In "Analysis of Capacity on the Ground" there is no need to put the options "medical" or " non-Medical".

Explo assessment should not be under extra details - Why explo assessment is under extra details

@LucieGueuning LucieGueuning changed the title "Response", should be "MSF Response" cf. field definition issue - cf. file shared in Google drive with field definition Oct 11, 2018
@matthewberryman matthewberryman changed the title cf. field definition issue - cf. file shared in Google drive with field definition field changes Oct 12, 2018
@matthewberryman
Copy link
Contributor

@LucieGueuning These are not bugs (aside from some of the wording changes, which I will get onto soon) but changes from what's in the sheet, e.g. it still lists medical figures:
screenshot 2018-10-12 08 51 37
Fields on event open doesn't list population
screenshot 2018-10-12 08 53 11
(again, care is needed not to overload people and the population figures may come from country information which isn't available until event is opened and CIA Factbook / other country info is available).
etc.
Since, as previously discussed, field changes take a while and can be complicated to implement, we need to wait until we've got feedback from pilots before proceeding further with the (non-wording) changes.

matthewberryman added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2018
@matthewberryman
Copy link
Contributor

@LucieGueuning operator field done (supersedes previous request in 2b) - please review in test environment. Note that operator is set automatically on event creation.

@LucieGueuning
Copy link
Author

What do you mean operator field done?

Please follow the shared file in drive for field definition

@matthewberryman
Copy link
Contributor

matthewberryman commented Nov 13, 2018 via email

@LucieGueuning
Copy link
Author

LucieGueuning commented Nov 13, 2018 via email

@matthewberryman
Copy link
Contributor

Please follow the file and not comments above. The file shared that I never stop referring to is the right reference one!

Ok, can I suggest you keep consistency with the spreadsheet in future to minimise any errors.

I have updated the wording to be "REACH Operator" per the spreadsheet but can you please double check that as I thought we were using "MSF REACH" not "REACH" consistently per other discussions?

matthewberryman added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 14, 2018
@LucieGueuning
Copy link
Author

LucieGueuning commented Nov 14, 2018

You are right for consistency but I won't change the wording again (for you to continue working on other deliverables). REACH operator is acceptable. For that specific operator field one: that's all good and working well. Only the order that is not followed but I guess it's coming with the field of info cleaned up.

Please follow carefully all the wordings and order for each field of information into the spreadsheet shared. Awaiting for the rest to be cleaned up as per shared spreadsheet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants