Volian/SourceCode
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP #544

Closed
plarsen wants to merge 12 commits from C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP into C2025-023
pull from: C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP
merge into: Volian:C2025-023
Conversation 6 Commits 12 Files Changed 35
+3889 -625
plarsen commented 2025-05-04 23:38:41 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Develop a way to filter annotations so the user can view only the types they want to see.

Develop a way to filter annotations so the user can view only the types they want to see.
C2025-027-Filter annotations so the user can view only the types they want to see..docx
167 KiB
plarsen added 11 commits 2025-05-04 23:38:42 -04:00
B2025-010 - Adjusted the positioning of the procedure title in the Catawba Deviation Format so that it is centered 818d764b3d
Merge pull request 'B2025-010 - Adjusted the positioning of the procedure title in the Catawba Deviation Format so that it is centered' (#539) from B2025-010 into Development 6f354bfeee 
Format only change.  Ready for testing
C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP 7c1d2b8aa5
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/C2025-023' into C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP c7f222511a
C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP 7f49c20364
F2025-011 Format changes are needed to account for ABN procedures. ba8a8b8673
Merge pull request 'F2025-011 Format changes are needed to account for ABN procedures.' (#541) from F2025-011 into Development db09db3cd0 
ready for testing phase
F2025-011 Format changes are needed to account for ABN procedures. 22c14d169b 
Adjustments to PSI location and Abnormal Procedure Steps Sections
Merge pull request 'F2025-011 Format changes are needed to account for ABN procedures.' (#542) from F2025-011 into Development 06159c6b68 
good for testing phase
C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP 18d9d1274e
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/Development' into C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP d20e419d2e
plarsen self-assigned this 2025-05-04 23:39:00 -04:00
jjenko was assigned by plarsen 2025-05-04 23:39:01 -04:00
mschill was assigned by plarsen 2025-05-04 23:39:01 -04:00
plarsen requested review from jjenko 2025-05-04 23:39:15 -04:00
plarsen requested review from mschill 2025-05-04 23:39:16 -04:00
mschill commented 2025-05-05 07:08:10 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

May need to discuss --- looks like this branch was based off Development and not C2025-023.

As a result, this has other items included that are not part of this request item ---- this could cause conflicts down the line when we try to merge the multiple branches together.

One other thing I am noticing with this, is it looks like there are quite a few places where there is commented out / un-used code. If there is a reason for this (or John disagrees with me then I am good with it), but IMO at least I think we should reduce the size of the code base by removing the code if it is commented and no longer serves a purpose (i.e. - was the code written and commented out because of possible future changes needed or just stuff for when something was being worked through and not used but left in? - I will comment on an individual example or what I am referring to but there are a number of places this is the case)

May need to discuss --- looks like this branch was based off Development and not C2025-023. As a result, this has other items included that are not part of this request item ---- this could cause conflicts down the line when we try to merge the multiple branches together. One other thing I am noticing with this, is it looks like there are quite a few places where there is commented out / un-used code. If there is a reason for this (or John disagrees with me then I am good with it), but IMO at least I think we should reduce the size of the code base by removing the code if it is commented and no longer serves a purpose (i.e. - was the code written and commented out because of possible future changes needed or just stuff for when something was being worked through and not used but left in? - I will comment on an individual example or what I am referring to but there are a number of places this is the case)
jjenko commented 2025-05-05 08:44:47 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

I agree with Matt's comments. It does look like this was based off of Development (noticed that It wants to included Matt's latest changes to VLNSvgPageHeader.cs).
Also, looking at the screen shot in the Source Control document, noticed the Select Annotation Type does not have header over the two columns. This could be confusing to customers, especially once Annotation were selected for filtering.

If we want any of the commented out code to hang around, then some text should be added to explain why, even if it say something like keep until it clears testing.

I agree with Matt's comments. It does look like this was based off of Development (noticed that It wants to included Matt's latest changes to VLNSvgPageHeader.cs). Also, looking at the screen shot in the Source Control document, noticed the Select Annotation Type does not have header over the two columns. This could be confusing to customers, especially once Annotation were selected for filtering. If we want any of the commented out code to hang around, then some text should be added to explain why, even if it say something like keep until it clears testing.
mschill requested changes 2025-05-05 09:34:24 -04:00
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24051,4 @@
[DTS] [datetime] NOT NULL,
[UserID] [nvarchar](100) NOT NULL,
[LastChanged] [timestamp] NOT NULL,
[IsEPAnnotationType] [bit] NOT NULL
mschill commented 2025-05-05 08:38:28 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Might be missing something, but not sure why this would have a Is EPAnnotationType?

Since this has a TypeID --- would assume that would get this from:

Select AnnotationTypes.IsEPAnnotationType FROM AnnotationTypes where AnnotationTypes.TypeID = AnnotationTypeSelections.TypeID

Thoughts are if it is being stored in 2 places - how do you keep them in synch / what if they are not in synch?

Again - could easily be missing the reason for this flag, but figured I would double check?

Might be missing something, but not sure why this would have a Is EPAnnotationType? Since this has a TypeID --- would assume that would get this from: Select AnnotationTypes.IsEPAnnotationType FROM AnnotationTypes where AnnotationTypes.TypeID = AnnotationTypeSelections.TypeID Thoughts are if it is being stored in 2 places - how do you keep them in synch / what if they are not in synch? Again - could easily be missing the reason for this flag, but figured I would double check?
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24068,4 @@
GO
-- =============================================
-- Author: <Author,,Name>
mschill commented 2025-05-05 08:39:10 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Should this have Author / description info in it?

Should this have Author / description info in it?
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24106,4 @@
GO
-- =============================================
-- Author: Matthew Schill
mschill commented 2025-05-05 08:40:33 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Should this have different author / description/etc...?

Should this have different author / description/etc...?
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24110,4 @@
-- Create date: 3/21/2025
-- Description: Add EP to AnnotationTypes
-- =============================================
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[getAnnotationTypes2]
mschill commented 2025-05-05 08:41:49 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Should this be something like get AnnotationTypeSelections since it gets the selections not the type details?

Should this be something like get AnnotationTypeSelections since it gets the selections not the type details?
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24142,4 @@
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO
-- =============================================
mschill commented 2025-05-05 08:42:10 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Should this have different author / description/etc...?

Should this have different author / description/etc...?
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24185,4 @@
GO
-- =============================================
-- Author: <Author,,Name>
mschill commented 2025-05-05 08:43:03 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Should this have different author / description/etc...?

Should this have different author / description/etc...?
PROMS/VEPROMS.CSLA.Library/Minimal/AnnotationstypeSelections.cs
@@ -0,0 +67,4 @@
dt.Rows.Add(row);
}
//row = dt.NewRow();
mschill commented 2025-05-05 07:10:06 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

This is an example of what I was referring to with the commented out code as it is very similar to the uncommented code above.

This is an example of what I was referring to with the commented out code as it is very similar to the uncommented code above.
mschill reviewed 2025-05-06 07:12:35 -04:00
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24044,4 @@
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[AnnotationTypeSelections](
[ASTypeID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[TypeID] [int] NULL,
mschill commented 2025-05-06 07:12:35 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

I might be missing something - but seams strange to have this setting at the item level (i.e. turning off showing Annotation types at the item level) --- wouldn't this be overall (under options) or at the MyDocVersion / Section level?

--- again, could easily be missing something but figured I would bring it up.

I might be missing something - but seams strange to have this setting at the item level (i.e. turning off showing Annotation types at the item level) --- wouldn't this be overall (under options) or at the MyDocVersion / Section level? --- again, could easily be missing something but figured I would bring it up.
mschill reviewed 2025-05-06 07:14:46 -04:00
PROMS/VEPROMS User Interface/PROMSFixes.Sql
@@ -24032,0 +24042,4 @@
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[AnnotationTypeSelections](
mschill commented 2025-05-06 07:14:46 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Should there be indexes on this?

a Primary Key / TypeID and ItemID combo?

Should there be indexes on this? a Primary Key / TypeID and ItemID combo?
mschill commented 2025-07-14 07:53:14 -04:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

this should be a new branch based off of development.

this should be a new branch based off of development.
mschill closed this pull request 2025-07-14 07:53:14 -04:00

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
jjenko
mschill
Labels
No items
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
djankowski (Devin Jankowski) jjenko (John Jenko) lbutler (Lydia Butler) mschill (Matthew Schill) mvickers (Michelle Vickers) plarsen (Paul Larsen)
No Assignees plarsen jjenko mschill
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Volian/SourceCode#544
Delete Branch "C2025-027-Develop-a-way-to-filter-annotations-so-the-user-can-view-only-the-types-they-want-to-see-EP"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?