I'm liking the simpler option of just adding one dropdown with category combinations, called something like "Repeat validation rule using". The default dropdown selection could be something like "[ Use validation rule as is ]" or "[ Don't repeat rule ]". The following choices are the option combos: "Age", "Sex", "Age/Sex", or whatever.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jim Grace <jimgr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > Here's my idea: Add one extra field to ValidationRule, a reference to > DataElementCategoryCombo. If this is null, it means no change from the > current validation rule. If it's not null, it means that the validation > rule should be applied to all option combos within the category combo, for > any data element(s) reference in the left and right side expressions. > > On the New Validation Rule screen, add an option right below "Rule type" > that selects whether or not this will be a "template" rule. (Except don't > use the word "template" -- too technical.) Maybe like what you said, or > "Apply rule to category combinations" (by default "No"). If "Yes" is > selected, another option pops into visibility just below to choose a > category combination. Once this is chosen, it is used to filter the list of > data elements that will be available to the editor in "Edit left side" and > "Edit right side". Perhaps the "Edit left side" and "Edit right side" > buttons should then be disabled until a category combination is chosen. > Otherwise the UI is left the same -- just the addition of these two fields > and the data element filter. The user is free to make any expressions they > want, but the data elements used on the left and right side must all have > the same category combo. > > From the software point of view this could be done much more simply in a > single dropdown of category option combos; it's a matter of the art of UI > design to make this all somewhat intelligible to the user. The semantics > would be that if you choose a combo, the data elements will be restricted > to those having the combo and the rule will be multiplied by every combo > option value. Using our pop-up contextual help feature on this screen (as > well as in many other areas of the product) would assist usability a lot! > > At validation rule execution time, some pre-processing is done > in ValidationRunContext.java (to avoid processing things that are common to > a validation run for each org unit / period). We could add an extra private > method to this class that we could take each validation rule with a > category option combo, and "multiply" it to make an in-memory validation > rule (not persisted) for each category combo. This would be done by taking > the left and right side expressions, looking for the data element tags > inside the expression, and adding each category option combo, respectively, > onto each data element tag. Then the validation run could proceed without > any further modification. > > Let me know what you think. I'm also happy to do the implementation if > that makes sense; I'm familiar with the code and it should be pretty quick. > > Cheers, > Jim > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Jason Pickering < > jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jim >> Yes, I think I agree with you, but a still a bit fuzzy how it could >> happen with the current UI. I think the user would have an option like >> "Apply this rule to common category combo options", and they would then >> select a left side, and the right side would only show data elements with >> the same category combo. The user would not select individual data >> elements. An operator would need to be selected as well, obviously. >> >> For the use case we are dealing with, it is always comparing two data >> elements, one which is typically a subset of another, which is quite common >> in HIV M&E. Number counselled <= Number tested <= Number positive <= Number >> receiving results. >> >> Regards, >> Jason >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jim Grace <jimgr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I like it. A couple of ideas: >>> >>> - I suggest that this be a new property of validation rules, rather than >>> a third type in addition to "Validation" and "Surveillance". It could be >>> potentially useful for either of these two rule types. >>> >>> - When selecting this option, the user could choose from a list of >>> category combos that then appears on the add validation rule screen. (We >>> could even present a list of category combos that are actually *used* by >>> data elements.) This list could be used to filter the data elements >>> available when creating the left and right sides, to make sure they all >>> have the same combos. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Jason Pickering < >>> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Lars, >>>> Finally got around to creating the blueprint here >>>> >>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/dhis2/+spec/atomic-validation-rules >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Lars Helge Øverland < >>>> larshe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jason, >>>>> >>>>> yes I think this makes sense. One could make a special kind of >>>>> validation rule, with a constraint that all data elements on the left and >>>>> right side expressions share the same category combination, and then tell >>>>> the system to validate each and every category option combination. Feel >>>>> free to write a blueprint. >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> >>>>> Lars >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jason Pickering < >>>>> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Devs, >>>>>> I came up against an issue today when looking at implementing a >>>>>> legacy database in DHIS2. In the old system, there are about 75 rules. >>>>>> The >>>>>> rules in the past have been applied at the atomic level, meaning that >>>>>> each >>>>>> and every data element category combination value is compared with a >>>>>> counter part. As an example. >>>>>> >>>>>> Number of persons currently receiving ART (including pregnant women) >>>>>> is greater than or equal to >>>>>> Number of individuals NEWLY initiating ART (including pregnant women) >>>>>> >>>>>> Each of these data elements are disaggregated by Gender and three age >>>>>> groups, and the validation rules need to be applied to each respective >>>>>> category combination options (not the totals). >>>>>> >>>>>> Although I do not know exactly how many rules we would need to to >>>>>> this, it is surely at least several hundred. I have not really come up >>>>>> against this before, and need to see if anyone has expericience with how >>>>>> the system behaves with "large" numbers of rules. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it would be good to think about how to we could make the >>>>>> rules be applied within category combo options , without having to >>>>>> explicitly define each and every rule. Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Jason >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs >>>>>> Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net >>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs >>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs >>>> Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs >>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
