What about remove default texts from Association input?

Each time before I want drag&drop my association text, I must clear the input. I could understand Unknown text, but what about Godfather?
My poposition is to set

ref.rel = "" 

into all 3 places. It will work, the empty field is allowed there and working good.
What do you think? Does it make sense?

Changing the default from "Godfather" to "" should be fine. (I agree that Godfather is a poor default.)

As you indicated, you would no longer need the enclosing parentheses or leading underscore. Those are only needed for strings that need translation.

For future reference, you can paste the Permalink from the GitHub source instead of pasting a source screen capture:
shows as:

Also, I strongly recommend using a gender-neutral Association like “Godparent” (rather than Godfather/Godmother) or “Godchild” (rather than Godson/Goddaughter) since the Gender information is already stored for each Person. It makes searches so much more simple to only have 1 type.

1 Like

@emyoulation agree with you about “gender-neutral Association”. I also would like make mass-renaming of Association input. Its also because I want translate my data from Ukrainian into English. Is it possible? Thanks

I tend to agree. I don’t think that the default of “Godfather” for new associations, or “Unknown” for drag & drop is particularly useful.

Associations have been enhanced in Gedcom 7.0 to include a role enumeration.


I have modified my code to use “Guardian” as my default in all occurrences. This based upon how I most often use the function.

It would

It would probably make more sense if the feature remembered the last used Association. Users are most likely to be entering Association from a queue of similar relationships.

Yeah, I think the default list of roles would be the best solution (with ability to write custom roles).

@emyoulation, personally for me remembering the last association will be unconviniant feature because when I add godparent on one side I also add godchild on the second side, so, I switch each time. It also would be great to solve this extra job by adding associations to the second person automatically. For example, if I add godparent to person1, then association godchild will be added to the person2 automatically. And vise versa.

That is the purpose of the SyncAssociations addon tool. You only need to do the 1st half, then run the tool at the end of the session. … so remembering the Association type could work well.

Although I’ve tweaked the source to expand the list of Association types the tool will Sync.

Regarding your question about mass revision: I seem to recall a SuperTool Script for revising Associations. So spent most of the day going to postings with scripts. More on that later.

1 Like

Wouldn’t it be even better to share the association record, i.e. the PersonRef object?

Associations relate two persons to each other. This relationship is almost always asymmetric (godperson → godchild versus friend ↔ friend). All there is to do is enhance a little PersonRef to hold two person handles instead of one (the ref field). By “splitting” this field into “antecedent” and “subsequent” and doing the same on rel (unless the relation type string itself hints at the asymmetry like “godparent/godchild”), the object can be shared between both parties in the relation (or even larger when considering other types of interpersonal relationships like fraternities or clubs – in which case the “subsequent” attribute does not make sense). Then updating the PersonRef object automatically updates in both parties.

Great tool! Regarding to my second question here, looks like this is what I need. Will try it a bit later after understand some other things.
Thank you @emyoulation

Check out this thread on creating your own listings of associations.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.