Family Historian User Group

Is there a way to list all subjects and their associated source citations?

I'm thinking of something along the lines of a report with the following columns (but would probably be ok with anything along these lines):

Name............... Event ......Source Citation
A. N. Other ........Birth ........Citation 1
A. N. Other ........Marriage. Citation 2

See the published plugin Sources List for Individual in the Plugin Store https://pluginstore.family-historian.co.uk/ that only works for one Individual subject.
See the Query: Sources linked to Individuals, using Named List (20717) posting that has my extended plugin version attached Sources List for Selected Individuals that works for any Individual subjects.

Thanks Mike!

Will it work in V7? The Plugin store shows it's for V5 adn V6...

Teresa

tatewise wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2022 15:54

See the published plugin Sources List for Individual in the Plugin Store https://pluginstore.family-historian.co.uk/ that only works for one Individual subject.
<SNIP>

Have you looked through the Query: Sources linked to Individuals, using Named List (20717) thread where it says it seems to work for FH V7.

Do we need to ask CP to bring the Plug-in store's details of version requirements fully in line with V7

David, it is not the responsibility of CP but that of each Plugin author to update their Plugin Store entries.
There is no way CP could go through and vouch for every plugin.

Sorry I thought that CP controlled the plug-in store (and did some basic checking before admitting a plug-in to the store).

Having a quick look for a few V5 & V6 plug-ins I can see that some are written by Support and Calico Pie and others by some quite well known names (some are marked on the detail pages as not upgradeable to work on V7).

Is it possible to send a prompt to plug-in authors to check their V5 and V6 plug-ins and if appropriate to explicitly update the summary panel to "Family Historian Version(s): V5 V6 V7"? Ideally an explicit statement if they are not V7 compatible (set up a version "Not V7"?) could be added?

Yes, CP perform some basic checks but only when a plugin is updated.
I don't know whether they check aginst every FH version specified.
The plugin in question was updated 02 Apr 2012 and will not have been checked since.

You can contact the Author in the Plugin Store via the 'Leave a Reply' Comment box for each plugin.
If the Author is recognisable as a member of the FHUG, such as Jane Taubman or Mike Tate, contact them via Forum Email.
Finally, you can post in the Plugin Discussions forum and ask for an update.
Are they enough avenues?

Mike,

I must have missed that or I wouldn't have asked

Thanks - I'll give it a go.

Teresa

tatewise wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2022 09:12

Have you looked through the Query: Sources linked to Individuals, using Named List (20717) thread where it says it seems to work for FH V7.

tatewise wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2022 14:47

Are they enough avenues?

Yes but,

Well, no, we are putting onus on users and prospective users. A big operation was done by FHUG members to ensure that the knowledge base was updated for V7 and that pages (and individual snippets) are annotated to indicate if the help applied to V6 or V7. That will have set expectations.

Even though the plug-in store is on a different domain, I would have thought that user expectations are that plug-ins would have gone through the same operation. Therefore they may ignore plug-ins that have not been flagged as suitable for V7 (I think they may take "V5 and V6" to mean it is not suitable - I doubt they will email "expert" developers to ask whether they really mean that). Then you end up "recommending an apparently non-compatible plug-in" and asking a user why they have not tried it!

I think it got missed and you say it is not CP's role, so that means either it is FHUG's role or we just hope that individual authors remember. I think it should have been included within the knowledge base update (how easy is it to create a mailing list of plug-in developers, send them an email asking them to update their plug-in compatibility to be either "V7" or "not V7").

Flagging applicability versions as "V5, V6 and V7" or V5, V6 and not V7" - is I suspect a small change to a pull down list very similar to that involved in giving "V7" as an option. AT worst it will save developers from getting emails!

I suspect the Sources List for Individual plugin represents a tiny minority that hasn't been assessed for FH V7.
I am fairly sure that the Calico Pie, Helen's, Mark's and my Plugins are all correctly assessed.
There are not too many others, and they are probably mostly OK. So let's not go overboard

Despite a big operation done by FHUG members to ensure the Knowledge Base was updated for V7, there are many entries that still need reviewing for V7 compatibility. Far more than Plugins that need re-assessing.
I regularly trip over a KB page that is not correctly classified.
e.g. I was starting to work through the dozens of Downloads but have been distracted by more pressing matters.

I will leave you to pursue the Not V7 option for both the Plugin Store and the FHUG KB.

Quite a few of the plugins which are not updated are mine. If someone wants a specific one they can use the author contact or leave a message. At the moment I am having a very busy time with work as has been the case since my colleague died on his 54th birthday.

Please remember all the people on FHUG volunteer their time, so sending out mandates demanding them to do things is not going to help.

Re the KB volunteers to check the downloads are always welcome. Also to at least identify articles that need updating. The more volunteers the less work for each.

Re plugins, there are 12 plugins written for V5/6 that were not written by CP, Jane. Mike or myself. If those 12 plugins have not been updated it's probably safe to assume that they won't be. (There is one that I have agreed with the original author to take over - Make Source from Template - but the demand for it in V7 is not urgent.) As Mike says the plugins by the 4 named authors are correctly classified according to the versions they have been TESTED against; they may work in later versions but may break things so should not be used by inexperienced users on real data.

I may have the numbers a bit wrong - it's been a while since I counted them during beta testing - but double checking them on my phone from hospital is not on my to-do list. (slight hiccup after my heart transplant 6 weeks ago).