Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Progressbar: Questioncount with conditions #429

Closed
m6121 opened this issue Mar 17, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Progressbar: Questioncount with conditions #429

m6121 opened this issue Mar 17, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@m6121
Copy link
Member

m6121 commented Mar 17, 2022

In the old DFG catalog (rdmorganiser/rdmo-catalog@8cc58d6) the first questionset asks if the research community has requirements while the second questionset is displayed only if the first was answered with 'yes' using a condition. Furthermore, the question inside the second questionset is not marked as "optional".

This results in the following situation: the progressbar counts this second question as missing if it is not filled although according to the answer in the first questionset (and, thus, also the condition), the question is skipped.

Is this a problem in the evaluation of the number of questions or is this a problem in the catalog which must also declare the questions inside some conditioned questionsets as optional?

@jochenklar
Copy link
Member

Hi @m6121 , yes this is an open problem, see #299 and #322. In principle questionset which conditions are not met should be excluded from the progress bar. However this needs to be fast on the database since the request for the progress bar is done a lot.

@m6121
Copy link
Member Author

m6121 commented Mar 17, 2022

Hi @jochenklar, thanks for the fast reply. I see. Unfortunately, our users were confused as they though they filled all information and the progressbar indicated this is not the case. This aimed at improving the answering workflow similar to #424

@m6121
Copy link
Member Author

m6121 commented Jan 4, 2024

Awesome that this has been implemented in #679 respectively #833 Many thanks for this contribution!

@m6121 m6121 closed this as completed Jan 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants