GRAMPS offers ways of sharing events, but the standard reports e.g. Complete Individual Report do not include other participants of these events, which would facilitate understanding of the context. Whilst using event description for bmds is a workaround, why should it be necessary to enter the data twice? With census data this is not reasonable. Has anyone modified the complete individual report to handle shared event participants?
5.1.1
W11
Pardon? What is “bmds”?
Ah… Birth, Marriage and Death Records (BMDs). Always have problems with un-introduced acronyms
A shared Event would be a bit complicated to include in the report.
Take the example of the Marriage [E2815] for the Home Person of the example.gramps tree. There isn’t a natural order for the Roles of the Participants. So any combined list is going to be a mess:
A contributor just submitted a patch for the Narrated Website report to include Shared Event participants and their roles.
Complicated or not, if I cannot get the information out in such a report, it begs the question of why enter the data in the first place. Surely, at some point, every user will want a printed report of the data after analysis and verification. A simple list of an individual’s events short changes all the effort taken at data entry.
I appreciate that the original report(s) met needs at the time, but perhaps there should be a strategy in place to ensure reporting features keep in step with increased capabilities for data entry.
Thanks, I’ll have a peep.
My observation that something is ‘complicated’ does not equate to: “cannot be done”. It means: “let’s discuss ways that it can be made less complicated.”
With shared Events, the complication is that the Roles are not prioritized. Which means a list of participants is bound to be disordered. The only absolutes are that ‘Primary’ and ‘Family’ roles are the key roles.
With children, the order of individuals is by creation order. But the user can manually override. And there is a tool to do mass re-ordering by birth (or its fallback) date.
Roles are ordered alphabetically in the pop-up menu for the built-ins followed by the custom Roles. They have no inherent priority, not even for the Primary/Family roles.
For what it might be worth, there are these underlying numeric values in eventroletype.py:
UNKNOWN = -1
CUSTOM = 0
PRIMARY = 1
CLERGY = 2
CELEBRANT = 3
AIDE = 4
BRIDE = 5
GROOM = 6
WITNESS = 7
FAMILY = 8
INFORMANT = 9
I think the important bit is to get the data out as a set in a usable format that can be formatted as the user wishes. If multiple participants in the same role were grouped, that would be a bonus.
…and these are the Association Roles in the GEDCOM7 specification:
| Value | Meaning |
|---|---|
| CHIL | Child |
| CLERGY | Religious official in event; implies OFFICIATOR |
| FATH | Father; implies PARENT |
| FRIEND | Friend |
| GODP | Godparent or related role in other religions |
| HUSB | Husband; implies SPOU |
| MOTH | Mother; implies PARENT |
| MULTIPLE | A sibling from the same pregnancy (twin, triplet, quadruplet, and so on). A PHRASE can be used to specify the kind of multiple birth. |
| NGHBR | Neighbor |
| OFFICIATOR | Officiator of the event |
| PARENT | Parent |
| SPOU | Spouse |
| WIFE | Wife; implies SPOU |
| WITN | Witness |
| OTHER | A value not listed here; should have a PHRASE substructure |
It will not work on a gramps 5.1. This patch is against master.
It does not work on master.
That’s a pity. Hopefully, it will be fixed by the time v5.2 is released. It’s an important contribution and hopefully will be extended to the complete individual report.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.