Ahnenblattportal

Thanks for your answer, Marcus!

I will switch to the sample file "Beispiel.ahn", too. I followed your way, and it is a good example for what we are talking about - as far as I have understood. It is - at least - an unexpected behavior to have to chose out of a list of 0 persons. Of course, it could be possible that there indeed is a person you want to identify with the new one which only wasn't automatically found. But the grandfather can not be the child itself.

In that case, at least another prompt could help beginners to understand what happens: I am asked to check personally if one of the proposed or one of the other existing entries is identic with the person to be generated. Proposal: Instead of "Selected person| To select..." and similar expressions in the other languages we should read "Check existing persons|Is one of the existing persons identic to ...?"

But again, I would tend to treat it as an error: 1) If I generate a child called 'Priska' (f), it's clear, that there is no such person in the database; 2) If I want to generate a new person as a child which already exists but is only hidden because of no relation to the familie, I get a proposal of the person: great; 3) But why does the software understand that the existing "Robert" needn't be proposed because he can't be the grandpa of himself (seems that there is a corresponding check) but offers the select-a-person-prompt anyway? If you don't want to call it an error, I call it an unappropriate behavior. I can't see it as a feature instead of a bug.

In the logic of the software, are there doubted cases where an empty list is prompted although there may be a person matching? If not, it shouldn't be much work to simply leave those empty lists out.

I don't care much about it, but maybe it could be eliminated in the next big version 3.0 that people are talking about from time to time. To me, it's not a hypothetic case but something that appears every now and then, so it can be annoying in the long run - depending on the 'name policy' that guided the family branch you are working on at the moment.

EDIT: If you, Marcus, agree, I would forward a note to Dirk B. with a text proposal for EN, DE and FR for the next AB version - as a first step. That's what I can do.

Fridolin

I would like to wait for an answer from Yves, since he had a problem with this function (which may be "deeper"). And above all, that's the reason we're talking english here.
Marcus

I still wonder why it is only us to talk. A lot of people are passing by and have a look what we are discussing. And in my view it's a quite essential step in generating a new person. It would be great if Yves and others leave a note about their view: In the end, is it a problem or not?

Fridolin hat geschrieben:I can't see it as a feature instead of a bug.

I cite myself and would like to adjust that statement: A 'bug' is too hard. I can see it as a feature, but at the same time am rolling eyes and just remember how much I was puzzled in the beginning > and so prefer not to get it that way (with that text). It's either you are asked at that moment if you want to make sure you aren't entering a double or you discover it yourself afterwards (although there really is nobody logically fitting) and then manually merge persons. You can see it as a matter of taste. In that view, I expressed what flavour I prefer.

What I would like to ask Yves: Have you ever found a double in the full persons list when the proposal list was empty? We'll await your answer. And now I bite my lip.

Fridolin