Share your patches for the SyncAssociations add-on

@GaryGriffin released his SyncAssociation add-on in August 2020. Now, checking for missing reciprocal Association is a regular part of my Tree maintenance.

The add-on includes a very short list of built-in associations and the wiki page has instructions for hacking this list.

Let’s share the Associations we have added to our lists

Here’s the initial list:

Association name Reciprocal association name
cM cM
Godfather Godchild
Godmother Godchild
Landlord Tenant

And where it lives in the source:

In my own installation, I did not care to introduce the complications of gender with Godmother & Godfather. The built-in already combined godson and goddaughter. So I replaced those 2 parental associations with a single association:

"Godparent": "Godchild",

Then added:

"Namesake": "Eponym",
"Pallbearer": "Interred",
"Slave Holder": "Enslaved",
"Bond Holder": "Indentured",
"Master": "Apprentice",
"Employer": "Employee",

expanded list:

"cM": "cM",
"DNA": "DNA",
"Blood Relation": "Blood Relation",
"Slave Holder": "Enslaved",
"Bond Holder": "Indentured",
"Master": "Apprentice",
"Employer": "Employee",
"Coworker": "Coworker",
"Pallbearer": "Interred",
"Landlord": "Tenant",
"Namesake": "Eponym",
"Godparent": "Godchild",
"Guardian": "Ward",
"Conservator": "Incapacitated",
"Executor": "Testator"

I added:

"Guardian": "Guardian of",

Isn’t the reciprocal association for a ‘Guardian’, their ‘Ward’?

And I’ve been thinking today of the Godparent association. In the traditional establishment of a Godparent religious relationship, the person MUST be a testifying witness at the Christening event. They make their caretaking vows at that service. So a Guardian could be a ‘role’ in that event that sets implicit associations with both the child and parents.

However, there has been a secular adoption of the Godparent term. I wonder what is the difference between that and the naming of a legal guardian for one’s child in the event of death or incapacitation, either in a will or living will? Isn’t Guardian:Ward better for the secular usage?

True but confusing.

Since my initial post I have these associations although truthfully, I only use a few of them.

“Godfather”: “Godchild”,
“Godmother”: “Godchild”,
“Godparent”: “Godchild”,
“Guardian”: “Guardian of”,
“Guardian of”: “Guardian”,
“Landlord”: “Tenant”,
“Tenant”: “Landlord”,
“Namesake”: “Named After”,
“Named After”: “Namesake”,
“Pallbearer”: “Pallbearer for”,
“Pallbearer for”: “Pallbearer”,
“Owned Slave”: “Enslaved by”,
“Enslaved by”: “Owned Slave”,
“Indentured Servant”: “Indentured to”,
“Indentured to”: “Indentured Servant”,
“Apprentice”: “Apprenticed to”,
“Apprenticed to”: “Apprentice”,
“Employer”: “Employee”,
“Employee”: “Employer”,

The only ones I actually use are the Guardian, Servant and Apprentice pairs.

1 Like

I am NOT positive but believe that the SyncAssociations handles reciprocal relationship definitions in a bi-directional fashion. So you should only need to define an Association once explicitly

That means it would be redundant to list:

“Indentured Servant”: “Indentured to”,
“Indentured to”: “Indentured Servant”,

But that assumes that initial association made are always the same.

Your relative could have been Indentured to another person, or was your relative the person that took on an Indentured Servant?

Truthfully, I did not explore the code but wanted to ensure that depending on what was found, the reciprocal would be added.

Let me make a few coments:

  • SyncAssociation is NOT bi-directional. You need to specify both directions.
  • Made the reciprocal always gender-neutral. Kept the gender specific keys. You can see this for Godparent <–> Godchild as the gender-neutral, and the godson/daughter → Godparent , for instance.
  • I am updating the list currently. I have a draft set of relationships and would like feedback

“DNA”: “DNA”,
“Godparent”: “Godchild”,
“Godchild”: “Godparent”,
“Godson”: “Godparent”,
“Goddaughter”: “Godparent”,
“Godfather”: “Godchild”,
“Godmother”: “Godchild”,
“Namesake”: “Eponym”,
“Eponym”: “Namesake”,
“Slave Holder”: “Enslaved”,
“Enslaved”: “Slave Holder”,
“Bond Holder”: “Indentured”,
“Indentured”: “Bond Holder”,
“Master”: “Apprentice”,
“Apprentice”: “Master”,
“Employer”: “Employee”,
“Employee”: “Employer”,
“Guardian”: “Guardian of”,
“Gurdian of”: “Guardian”,
“Ward”: “Guardian”,
"Namesake”: “Named After”,
"Named After”: “Namesake”,
"Pallbearer”: “Pallbearer for”,
"Pallbearer for”: “Pallbearer”,
"Owned Slave”: “Enslaved by”,
"Enslaved by”: “Owned Slave”,
"Indentured Servant”: “Indentured to”,
"Indentured to”: “Indentured Servant”,
"Apprentice”: “Apprenticed to”,
"Apprenticed to”: “Apprentice”,
“Landlord”: “Tenant”,
“Tenant”: “Landlord”


Not exactly. I read your set up wrong. They are a bit wonky. Most have synonyms for the SAME association and should have opposing sides. Instead of:

“Indentured Servant”: “Indentured to”,

it should be:

“Indentured Servant”: “Bond Holder”,

Typo and incorrect since they are synonyms.
“Guardian of”: “Ward”,

Again, this is confusing.

This would have the person that was indentured to another person have the Associations tab with the entry: “Indentured Servant”. With my terms the indentured person would have the association “Indentured to”.

And while Bond Holder may be accurate, it is not readily understood.

If you keep the Gender specific keys, won’t the 1st sync create a Reciprocal. Then a 2nd sync will create a Gender Neutral reciprocal to the Association generated in the last run?

“Goddaughter”: “Godparent”, generates a Godparent
then a 2nd run sees the "Godparent": "Godchild" rule and generates a redundant “Godchild” association co-habitating with the “Goddaughter” association?

Yes, it is confusing. In fact, what is most confusing is WHICH DIRECTION IS THE ASSOCIATION ? Is the association how the active person describe themself in relation to the other person? Or is it how they describe that person in relations to themself?

I fear that I am flip-flopping on that.
But what you are missing is that the “Indentured Servant” association how they are related to the person
Now it already exists. And it is identical being "Indentured to” said person.

The Sync is switching over to the wicked “bond holder” and asking how the relationship is seen from the opposite direction.

Yes, if you create an initial Association of Godson, SyncAssociation will create a reverse Association GodParent and then its reverse Association of Godchild. So the initial person will have 2 Associations with the same person - one as Godson and one as Godchild. I dont think I should change the existing Association type (from Godson to Godchild).

Ward - I created a ‘preferred’ relationship of Guardian <–> Guardian of. I also added a Ward → Guardian. So if the user used either Ward or Guardian of, it would create a reverse of Guardian. If they used Ward, it would also create a new Association for the person as Guardian of. Again, two Associations pointing to the same person (the Guardian).

The challenge is: there may be users that have used Godson/daughter or Godfather/mother in the past. I wanted to support these people and get them to the gender-neutral version. Maybe that is ambitious.

I think that the correct approach is to either expand the “Type Cleanup” tool to recognize the “Custom Types” of Associations or to build some SuperTool scripts to harmonize the Associations.

Obviously, the first would more user friendly.


“Guardian of”: “Guardian”,

‘Of’ is a VERY ambiguous preposition.

Assume a legal document. The person signs for themself. A person cannot affix signature in the third person. The “of” designates a third-person.

___________________ Plaintiff/Petitioner 
___________________ Ward (guarded, protectee, minor, incapacitated)
___________________ Guardian
___________________ Witness
___________________ Clerk
___________________ Presiding judge

Thanks. I fixed the typo.

1 Like

Let me take a step back. It seems to me that ‘Guardian’ and ‘Guardian of’ is the same thing,

Mary was appointed Guardian to Bill
Mary is the Guardian of Bill
Mary is Bills Guardian

Bill is the ??? of Mary? Ward seems like it is right.

Merriam Webster says an antonym of Guardian is : dependent, charge, client, or ward.

It seems to me that the right sync would be Guardian <–> Ward.

1 Like

I opted for ‘bond holder’ because both the more recognizable terms are “trigger words” related to human trafficking. We cannot even use the words when discussing daisy-chained hard drives.

It is irrelevant that the terms are also applicable to legally compliant (or criminal) holders of apprentices, captives, refugees, indentured servants, redemptioners, and convicts of any gender, religion, race or social strata.