Persons with incomplete home addresses from different jurisdictions can not be merged

[adinaflorea9]

Problem Description

When using the person merge #5606 to try and merge persons that are from different jurisdictions (in their home address section) a warning appears if one of the persons has an incomplete home address.

A separate ticket has been created as in #5606 it was specified that information from the fields that are not filled in for the leading person should be filled with information from the discarded person. But it was not specified what should be done when the information is conflicting.

The scenario proposed considers 2 persons that are duplicates, one entry could be from a while ago when the person had an incomplete home address from jurisdiction 1, and the second entry for that person in their latest one, and has a complete home address from jurisdiction 2.

Steps:

1. Create a person that has the following home address:
   

2. Create a second person that would be considered a duplicate of the one from step1, but use the following home address:
   

3. Try to merge the 2 persons and have the person from step 1 as the leading person;
   -> the merge is not possible, as the information from the community field from the discarded person can not be migrated into the leading person.
   

Proposed Change

Two options for the proposed change:

1. Would it be desired for the whole home address to be updated for the leading person when the home address information is from different jurisdictions (different districts, and/or different communities)?

2. Would it be desired for the whole home address to be transferred into the leading person in the form of a 'New entry' in the 'Addresses' section of the leading person?

Acceptance Criteria

Implementation Details

Additional Information

[MateStrysewske]

I consider this a bug because it seems like there's a problem in our implementation, specifically the implementation of location merging. We definitely can't use the logic "if it's empty in the leading entity, copy it over" for jurisdictions here because that will inevitably lead to issues like the one reported here.

We should refine this, but my suggestion would be to go with solution 2, i.e. if the home addresses don't match, copy the home address of the discarded person over to the other addresses of the leading person. Needs to be discussed with HZI though.

[adinaflorea9]

@JaquM-HZI and @SahaLinaPrueger does the proposed solution number 2 seem suitable for you?

[SahaLinaPrueger]

I am not sure.

if the home addresses don't match

So that i understand:

1. Would that mean that we check from country till facility name and description if the entry is identical?
2. And if the entries are identical, just some field like community is missing then we add the field?
3. And if the entries are not identical, for example because of a spelling mistake in the field facility name and description we copy the home address of the discarded person to the form 'new entry'?

First I thought: Nr. 2 is suitable for me. I was just not sure if it would be better to take home as address type or other address, and the description would be previous home address

Other address makes more sense, but we cannot translate previous home address, to other languages because it is a free-text field, right?

And then my second thought was:
We said that everything will be taken over that is empty in the leading person and written out in the discarded person, right? Maybe the user thinks (if we handle it with Solution Nr. 2) everything, that is different from the leading person will be attached somewhere else. Maybe we should say, if the home address do not match, then the home address in the discarded person will get lost. I will talk to my team about this.

[SahaLinaPrueger]

@adinaflorea9 We discussed this: We go with solution Nr. 2.
Address Type should be other address and address name / description should be: adopted from discarded person
Thank you for suggesting solution Nr. 2!

[adinaflorea9]

As discussed with @sergiupacurariu I am reopening the ticket due to the following scenarios:

I:

1. Create 2 persons with the same home address (same region, district, and/or community) but different 'Facility category' and 'Facility type' - no new entry in 'Addresses' is created after merge

2. Create 2 persons with the same home address (same region, district, and/or community), same 'Facility category' but different 'Facility type' - no new entry in 'Addresses' is created

3. Create 2 persons with the same home address (same region, district, and/or community), same 'Facility category', same 'Facility type', but different 'Facility' - no new entry in 'Addresses' is created

4. Create 2 persons with the same home address (same region, district, and/or community), same 'Facility category', same 'Facility type', but one person has an actual 'Facility' selected, and the other has 'Other Facility' and the field 'Facility name and description' filled in - no new entry in 'Addresses' is created

5. Create 2 persons with the same home address (same region, district, and/or community), same 'Facility category', same 'Facility type', but 'Other Facility' is selected and the field 'Facility name and description' filled with two different values - no new entry in 'Addresses' is created

II:
1.
Person 1 - has the home address in region 1, district 1, community 1 + a facility that belongs to community 1
Person 2 - has the home address in region 1, district 1 + a facility that belongs to district 1
2. Keep person 2 (discard person 1)
-> on person 2 the facility is now set as 'inactive' and the community from person 1 'migrated' into person 2

[adinaflorea9]

Verified ticket on the local machine using the latest version of SORMAS from the development branch - 1.79.0-SNAPSHOT(2cbcbbe).