Tripal: Annoyances

[spficklin]

This is just a place to catch small annoyances that need fixing before the release but may or may not be bugs and bugs are minor.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 1: The content types are not sorted alphabetically

[spficklin]

Annoyance 2: The code for autocomplete for specifying a cvterm is duplicated in multiple places. It really should be one function so we can make fixes (if need be) in one place.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 3: When changing the field layout for a content type the page loading is too slow.

[bradfordcondon]

Annoyance 4: I often want to look up the bundle and entity id given a chado record and table, but i dont think theres an API to do so.

edit: saw after i posted that this is "needs fixing before release" ... dont know if i feel that way about this.

[spficklin]

I'm marking those that have been resolved with a horray emoji

[bradfordcondon]

teh cvterm lookup box returns results that aren't valid for term creation.
For example:

[spficklin]

Oh, this is the same problem as the third comment above. It's because that autocomplete term is a synonym but the lookup code isn't using synonyms. It got fixed in one place but not in other places.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 5: Data Searches should not search by default, but it should be set to require a button press before results are shown.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 6: The Pub Importer still has a link to the old help pages.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 7: importing pubs results in warning messages if the pub already exists.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 8: non Tripal fields aren't showing up in the web services.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 9: Tripal Bundles don't have the uid integrated with Views and there are no relationships for the user content.

[spficklin]

Annoyance 10: when importing pubs using the Tripal importer the publications are not automatically published like they were in Tripal v2.

[bradfordcondon]

@spficklin I would vote in favor of creating child issues for these annoyances since its hard to track what has/has not been done.

[spficklin]

Yes, good point. This document was just meant to be a place to discuss and was meant to collect info for our Sept 7th User's meeting. So for that reason I think maybe we can close out this discussion. For the specific issues that got added I think you're right.

[bradfordcondon]

ok agreed. lets close but make any child issues that you want addressed in the future.