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
Add support for customizing scope and hierarchy #77
Comments
Received a request to implement the Geography tree at the institutional level. Trees should have their scope be more configurable. |
Two solutions are proposed in #2912 (comment) (see "Simple" and "Advanced" sections) In either case, there is very little we can do until sp7 divorses from sp6 |
From Barcelona on Trello:
|
Soraya at Naturhistorisches Museum Bern said the following:
|
Soraya brings up a good question– @benanhalt Do you know anything about this? 🔍 |
This issue has been mentioned on Specify Community Forum. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.specifysoftware.org/t/geography-tree-at-institution-level/1515/2 |
@grantfitzsimmons I don't know anything about it. Searching the Specify 6 code, the field doesn't appear to be used for anything. |
@benanhalt Thanks for looking into that! I couldn't find anything on it either. It's been a while 😉😄 |
The scoping of various records to the collection -> discipline -> division -> institution hierarchy may not be appropriate for all use cases. What possibility is there for adding flexibility to this system?
From Martin Stein:
@grantfitzsimmons edit:
The most common request is to have Geography at the institution level.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: