* DEA questions

[redvanman]

Am I missing something here? I am experimenting with using a DEA to enter marriage details. I already have a source record from FH6 for the parish records in question.

• First question. Can I use it or do I have to create a new source record - my understanding is that I need a new one. Am I right? Can I convert my existing records?

Anyway, to move on, I created a new source record and installed the Record Marriage Data DEA from the plugin store. When I ran it, it demanded a lot of information that I didn't know - in particular, the ages of the principals. To make progress I invented some ages, and other mandatory information, and got a result (i.e. all the information found its way into FH as I would expect).

• Second question. Can I customise the data entry so that some of the mandatory field become optional, or do I have to wait until some kind soul updates the plugin?

I should make it clear that the issue of mandatory ages is just an example - there may be other types of source records where what the DEA author thinks should be there are actually missing.
Having said all that, I was most impressed with the way the DEA eventually worked, and I'm looking forward to using them.
Alyn

[ColeValleyGirl]

Alyn,

1. You can prepare a citation to an existing source and use an DEA with that prepared citation -- no need to create a new source. However, the source HAS to match the source type(s) a DEA is designed to work with and none of the DEAs in the store yet handle generic sources (I'm working on it).

2. The Marriage DEA in the store is designed to work with England and Wales marriage certificates and parish registers post 1837 (when entry of an age or at least minor or of full age was mandatory) hence the age field is mandatory. If you're comfortable with the plugin editor, the DEA is driven by data tables (find the routine LoadMasterForms) and you can change what's mandatory there... However, if you look at the plugins in Some new Data Entry Assistant plugins for testing (V7) (18293) you'll see how I'm working to generalise them.

[redvanman]

Thanks for the reply Helen.
My conclusion is that the answer to both my questions is "no, for now", and I'm quite disappointed, given that Source Templates and Source Driven Data Entry were two of the selling points of FH7.
I suspect (and hope) my conclusion is wrong, and that all that is really missing is a clear explanation of how long-standing users of FH, with a substantial collection of generic sources can start to make use of these new features.

Alyn

[ColeValleyGirl]

Did you try either of the plugins I posted for testing which work with generic sources? And all data is optional except names and sex?

[tatewise]

Regarding conversion of existing Source Citations see Sample plugin for converting sources to use templates (18347).

[redvanman]

Helen,

Did you try either of the plugins I posted for testing which work with generic sources?

I've just tried Record Birth Data (any).
I got this from the plugin:

Code: Select all

... Files (x86)\Family Historian\Program\Lua\fhutils.fh_lua:1938: addFamilyAsSpouse - Pointer and Tag are required
stack traceback:
	[C]: in function 'error'
	... Files (x86)\Family Historian\Program\Lua\fhutils.fh_lua:1938: in function 'fhutils.addFamilyAsSpouse'
	[string "C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl..."]:498: in upvalue 'addFamilyAsSpouse'
	[string "C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl..."]:523: in local 'processChildFamily'
	[string "C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl..."]:582: in function 'processBirth'
	[string "C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl..."]:1441: in upvalue 'callback'
	[string "C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl..."]:258: in function <[string "C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl..."]:258>
	(...tail calls...)
	[C]: in function 'iuplua.Popup'
	[string "C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl..."]:1550: in main chunk

I do appreciate that you and many others are working hard to get this all working, and this is certainly not intended as a criticism of your efforts.

The disappointment I expressed in my earlier post is that Calico Pie has not provided something that works out of the box for existing data, but depends instead on volunteers spending their time writing plugins. I want to get on with my family history research, using new FH7 features where I can. I'm beginning to think this promising feature is not all it's cracked up to be.

Alyn

[ColeValleyGirl]

Alyn, could you run it again and provide a screenshot of the data entry screen just before you press OK, so I can work out what's going on please?

Thanks.

[Mark1834]

I think it is fair comment that there may be a mismatch between having a facility such as this that only works effectively with extensive community support and the relatively high level programming experience required to even modify an existing DEA, but it’s early days yet. When plugins were first introduced in FH5, many members contributed to the download store. Hopefully, the same will happen with DEAs eventually, rather than ending up with the unhealthy situation where Helen writes all the DEAs and Mike writes all the conventional plugins.

Perhaps we need a New Year resolution for FH users - instead of saying “wouldn’t it be good if the plugin/DEA did this...”, think “how do I make it do that...?” Many people are perfectly happy just driving the car without ever lifting the bonnet, but if you have any interest at all in how it actually works, roll up your sleeves and start tinkering...

[ColeValleyGirl]

As an illustration of how easy it is to modify some aspects of a DEA, Alyn originally asked

Can I customise the data entry so that some of the mandatory field become optional

In the Marriage DEA, there are two identical lines 648 and 677 (one for the principal and one for the spouse):

Code: Select all

{tag='AGE',type="STRING", label="Age (or full)", dr='AGE',value='', mask= "(/d+[dwmyf]|full|Full)", minlength=1},

In each case changing 'minlength=1' to 'minlength=0' makes the age optional, as does removing ', minlength=1' completely.

[tatewise]

Yes, that editorial change is easy but knowing that minlength=1 makes a field mandatory requires a bit more experience and studying the programming concepts.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Mike, I was responding to Mark's suggestion about 'rolling up sleeves and starting tinkering' with an illustration of how simple it is to modify some aspects of the current DEAs for somebody willing to do a little experimentation, not expecting people to understand the table-driven data entry without reading the documentation.

P.S. minlength doesn't make it mandatory, it sets the minimum acceptable length of the string in that field.

[tatewise]

That is what I was trying to say.
The new user has to translate the concept of a "mandatory field becoming optional" into changing minlength=1 which means a minimum of 1 mandatory character into minlength=0 which means no characters are allowed i.e. the field is optional. I think for some, that conceptual leap may take much more effort than for others.

[AdrianBruce]

... I'm quite disappointed, given that Source Templates and Source Driven Data Entry were two of the selling points of FH7. ...

And also later on:

... The disappointment I expressed in my earlier post is that Calico Pie has not provided something that works out of the box for existing data, but depends instead on volunteers spending their time writing plugins ...

I'm keeping a careful eye on what's going on from my v6 backwoods - I absolutely intend to upgrade at some point, by the way.

I'm slightly concerned at Alyn's concerns but I'm unclear - through obvious lack of experience - where the issues are. Surely Source Templates and Source Driven Data Entry do work out of the box and can be used without Data Entry Assistants?

Note that I have never used Ancestral Sources (no criticism of Nick, it's just that I preferred to continue with my methods) so I was expecting that, when I came to concocting a Templated Source, then I'd just fill in the form (whatever it is) manually as before, without using a DEA. (Nor am I a fan of transcribing lots of text from the record). I understand that DEAs can help get the proverbial ducks in a row, but that counts as a nice-to-have in a way.

Am I missing something?

[tatewise]

Adrian, what you missing is that the new Source Template techniques produce Source records that are a very different format from your FH V6 Source records, but there is no mechanism for converting your FH V6 Source records into FH V7 Templated Source records. So you have to decide how you are going to cope with that situation. Live with the differences, avoid using Source Templates, or convert all your old Source records using a Plugin probably written by somebody else.

You can probably use DEA in conjunction with your old Source record style, but is a there a DEA that matches your data style?
If not you will have to adapt an existing DEA, which means editing Plugin script.

OR you just continue as you are, with what are referred to as Generic Source records, and ignore the new tools.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Adrian, no you're not missing anything. Source templates and source driven data entry do work out of the box. You can use automatic source citation as you always have done, or do it all manually. It is after all an approach and not a technology.

The concerns being expressed are about the lack of fully featured mature DEAs available immediately, plus the fact that (apart from the examples that CP have provided) they will be written by volunteers. Not like Ancestral Sources of course... Except for the written by a single volunteer of course.

Mike's point about converting generic sources to template ones is a good one, but as IIRC you have highly structured sources already you probably don't need templates to enforce the discipline (although perversely highly structured sources will be the easiest to convert programmatically). And DEAs can be written to work with generic sources.

One dea I have on my todo list is an update of the make source from template plugin for generic sources; I've already got permission from the original author. It may be of interest to people who want to continue with generic sources but enforce some structure.
.

[AdrianBruce]

Adrian, what you missing is that the new Source Template techniques produce Source records that are a very different format from your FH V6 Source records, but there is no mechanism for converting your FH V6 Source records into FH V7 Templated Source records. So you have to decide how you are going to cope with that situation. Live with the differences, avoid using Source Templates, or convert all your old Source records using a Plugin probably written by somebody else. ...

No Mike, I understand perfectly that the new template driven Source Records will look entirely different from those converted from v6. (No idea what that difference looks like on the .GED file, but I'm assuming it's different!)

Right now (from exactly zero experience, obviously) I would want to explore using Source Templates for new source types - for instance, a few months ago, I started using the Irish Registry of Deeds for the first time. If I'd done that using v7, I'd want to at least explore setting up a Source Template for the Registered Deeds. That will then, if I understand things, result in somewhat different presentations of the resultant templated sources vs. my original generic sources in reports, etc, etc. Again, I've no idea whether I can live with those differences yet or not.

Convert my old sources? My sources are written in numerous sub-formats, as it were so if I didn't keep things consistent I have zero expectation of anyone else being able to convert them... I don't have a problem with that.

... You can probably use DEA in conjunction with your old Source record style, but is a there a DEA that matches your data style? If not you will have to adapt an existing DEA, which means editing Plugin script.

OR you just continue as you are, with what are referred to as Generic Source records, and ignore the new tools.

Yes but that's the bit that's concerning me. Your first para there refers to using DEAs. The alternative the way that you've written it, is Generic Sources, with none of the new tools. To be explicit: Are DEAs mandatory when I use Templated Sources? Or can I happily (or even unhappily) attempt to use Templated Sources (if it turns out to be a good idea) without DEAs?

[AdrianBruce]

Adrian, no you're not missing anything. Source templates and source driven data entry do work out of the box. You can use automatic source citation as you always have done, or do it all manually. It is after all an approach and not a technology. ...

Thanks Helen - and my apologies to Mike for posing the "To be explicit: Are DEAs mandatory" question which was written before Helen replied. That's my "Hang on, I need to be absolutely certain that I've understood this..." kicking in.

... as IIRC you have highly structured sources already you probably don't need templates to enforce the discipline ...

Well, my latest sources are highly structured but I never summoned up any enthusiasm for a source-record based do-over.

... One dea I have on my todo list is an update of the make source from template plugin for generic sources; I've already got permission from the original author. It may be of interest to people who want to continue with generic sources but enforce some structure.

That would be very interesting - I have a number of templates in that plugin that I like using.

[Mark1834]

Adrian - it sounds like your position is very similar to mine. I had the benefit of playing with FH7 during the beta period, and have just taken the plunge of upgrading to the commercial version.

However, this was mostly for improvements in other areas. Report formatting is a lot nicer, and it gives much better treatment to lumped sources, without the arbitrary and unnecessary restriction in FH6 to a single display line of text. IMO, the new citation window is neither better or worse, just different, and I'm quickly getting used to it. Rich text is a worthwhile addition, but I will be sparing on what I retrofit. I have no intention of converting any of my existing generic sources, but may look at customising a template for any brand new ones. Both generic and template sources work just fine without a DEA, that extra step is purely optional.

Template sources are a trade off - you can optimise them within FH7 to display just as you wish, but anything that goes outside GEDCOM kills compatibility with other apps. Mike does a grand job with his plugin of trying to save as much data as possible, but for me compatibility means full two way exchange with another app without corruption, and we are a long way from that. It may come in time, if other apps build in support for FH features, but clearly we are talking years rather than months before that happens, if it ever does.

[LornaCraig]

Note that I have never used Ancestral Sources (no criticism of Nick, it's just that I preferred to continue with my methods) so I was expecting that, when I came to concocting a Templated Source, then I'd just fill in the form (whatever it is) manually as before, without using a DEA.

I'm willing to bet that's what you will do. The DEAs are designed to do the same job that Ancestral Sources does, but with the added flexibility that DEAs can be created for a wider range of sources. But if you have never wanted to use Ancestral Sources you are not likely to want to use DEAs. And some of us who do use Ancestral Sources are happy to continue using it rather than DEAs.

[redvanman]

A lot of discussion since I was last here ...
But in response to Helen's request

Alyn, could you run it again and provide a screenshot of the data entry screen just before you press OK, so I can work out what's going on please?

The screen shot is attached:

Plugin bug.jpg (143.88 KiB) Viewed 3822 times

I should add that FH crashed when I pressed OK - surely the program should recover from something that goes awry in a plugin?

Alyn

[AdrianBruce]

Adrian - it sounds like your position is very similar to mine. ...

Must be something in our South Cheshire water....

... However, this was mostly for improvements in other areas. ...

Interesting - I shall bear that in mind. (Though virtually the only lumped sources I use are the GRO indexes and any equivalents elsewhere in the world. And Directories).

[tatewise]

FH crashed when I pressed OK - surely the program should recover from something that goes awry in a plugin?

Theoretically 'YES' but FH V7 seems to be more susceptible to crashing than FH V6.

[ColeValleyGirl]

The screen shot is attached: Plugin bug.jpg

Thanks Alyn. Can I see the top half of the dialog with all the individuals selected please?

[redvanman]

Well wouldn't you know it ...
Have just attempted to recreate the problem to capture the whole screen and although I got the exception, this time FH handled it and the updates are there in my project.
Anyway, this is what I had:

Part1.jpg (188.23 KiB) Viewed 3709 times

Part2.png (26.73 KiB) Viewed 3709 times

.

I can now see how this feature can potentially work well with my existing sources, and I will press on with getting to grips with it. Thank you for your help Helen, and I look forward to seeing the finished plugins.

Alyn