* Updating Templated Sources Title

[Mark1834]

I’m dipping my toe into Templated Sources for a new FH project (only 2 years after upgrading ).

The Essentials collection is a good place to start, but I will be customising the templates a little. I suspect the optimum template won’t become apparent until I’ve entered a few initial sources. If I update the automatic source title in the template and its definition, is there a way to force the update to existing sources automatically? The help seems to say that existing sources are only updated if the source is edited, or have I missed something?

[tatewise]

I think that if you update a definition and sync with the Source Template records then all the Source records using that Source Template get their Title updated automatically.

[Mark1834]

That's not what I found (I did try it before posting ).

Specifically, I was editing the Title to use just a part place name using {=TextPart(%SOUR.~PL-LOCATION%,1,2)}. Once I synced it with the Template, all new sources used the shorter form, but existing sources didn't change until I opened them individually and either changed some other value or selected Autogenerate Record Title from the Title cog wheel.

That's easy enough now while I just have a handful of sources, but will be a pita if I make a change later once I have dozens of them. Plan B would be a very short custom plugin that updates the Titles, but I'd have to change that each time I changed the Template, and that's not particularly elegant either.

[tatewise]

IMO That does not seem right. Surely if the Autogenerate Record Title option is ticked then it would be reasonable to expect all the old Titles to update automatically. Perhaps that is an oversight by CP and worth asking about.

[Mark1834]

I agree - I’ll have another play, and check with CP if I can’t get it to work. Maybe there’s an option setting somewhere that I’ve missed.

[tatewise]

I looked but could not find an option setting anywhere.
The associated Help pages that describe synchronisation, i.e. Source Template Definition Compare Dialog, do not mention what happens when the Record Title Format is changed as a consequence of a synchronisation.

[Mark1834]

Fairly quick reply from Martin at CP - they sound sympathetic to adding it as an option, so one for the Wish List please.

This is by design. It is possible that we could add a facility to force auto-generated source titles throughout a project to refresh. I have made a note that you would presumably like such a feature. You could also propose it on the FHUG Wish List.

[ColeValleyGirl]

So one for the Wish List please.

Create the Wish List entry in the New Wish List Request forum, and Mike or I will get around to it sometime.

[NickWalker]

I agree - I’ll have another play, and check with CP if I can’t get it to work. Maybe there’s an option setting somewhere that I’ve missed.

If you could find a way to add _AUTO 2 as a sub tag under each title then when FH next loads up your file it would update the titles.

[Mark1834]

Thanks Nick - I tried it just by adding a tag to the GEDCOM manually, and it works exactly as you describe. Unfortunately, it doesn't stick, as FH deletes the tag when it next saves the file. I think the best we could do is a simple plugin that adds those tags at the end of an FH session, after the file is saved. Titles would then update at the start of the next session.

Certainly better than nothing, but not a substitute for it being a supported FH option, so I'll put something together for the Wish List this week.

[NickWalker]

If I get time I could add it as a process in AS to mark all templated source titles so they update when FH next loads (you wouldn't have to use AS for anything else ).

[tatewise]

I find the response from Martin of CP a little thin on detail.
If the Source Titles are not updated by design then what is the thinking behind that decision?
How and when would those Titles get updated?
I've just gone through a Definition and Source Template update and sync.
Then I've viewed a Source Citation involving an old Source and published a Report involving that old Source.
They both continued to use the old Title.
So that leaves manually going through each Source Title one by one. Surely that cannot be rational thinking by CP.
Mark, could you perhaps press them on that point on what they consider is their by design workflow?

It seems the 'users' are planning to write plugins/update AS to fix a significant deficiency in FH.

[Mark1834]

I'm certainly not publishing anything. The most I will do is a quick and dirty for my own use if I get to the stage where that becomes necessary and FH hasn't been fixed by then.

[ColeValleyGirl]

There's always a design choice to be made when you have templates.

Does a change to a template affect all items currently using that template? Or does the change only affect future items using that template?

I could construct an argument for both approaches, and neither of them would be wrong; they'd just reflect different methods of working. So I'd be reluctant to leap to calling CP's design decision a 'significant deficiency', even if I didn't like it... but I recognise that others often find something that differs from their way of thinking a 'bug' or a 'deficiency' and they're entitled to their view.

In this instance, I'd ask myself: would an 'ordinary user' (recognising that those of us who delve into the minutiae and/or don't just want to use the pre-defined templates are in the minority) expect a change to the template to affect what they've already created and (the important bit) have to review all the affected sources to check they're happy with the outcome ?

And I'd conclude that the 'safest' option for the majority of users would be for changes to be effective 'going forward' and not retrospectively.

YMMV.

P.S. I'd certainly experiment with template modifications in a test project, and get them 'right' before I applied them to anything important.

[Mark1834]

That was my feeling as well. We all have opinions on how we expect FH to behave and how we would design it, but something that differs from that is not necessarily a bug or a shortcoming. After all, power users are more able to tailor it to their liking.

I'm happy to work up an outline Wish List item (as long as we don't take dozens of further posts to wordsmith the exact wording ), and it can go from there.

[ColeValleyGirl]

As long as the Wish List Request is clear, I've no inclination to wordsmith it!

[tatewise]

Sorry guys, but I don't go along with your logic.
You seem to be saying that changes to a Templated Source Definition should not retrospectively affect existing Sources.
Well if any of the Bibliography, Footnote, or Short Footnote Formats are changed guess what happens?
All existing Sources change those fields in their Citation Window and in Reports automatically and immediately.
No manual intervention is required Source by Source.
I suspect that changing any Field definitions also have immediate and retrospective effects on existing Sources.

So why should Source Titles be any different?

If users don't want Source Titles automatically updated then the Autogenerate Record Title option should not be ticked.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Mike T, as I said YMMV

[Mark1834]

Well if any of the Bibliography, Footnote, or Short Footnote Formats are changed guess what happens?
All existing Sources change those fields in their Citation Window and in Reports automatically and immediately.
No manual intervention is required Source by Source.

Of course they do. What else did you expect? Bibliography and Footnote are properties of the Template, not the Source. Title is a propertyof the Source. They are fundamentally different.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Building on what mark said:

Title is a finding aid so if it changes unexpectedly that's a.pain.

Bibliography etc are for publication (however you publish) so consistency matters more.

[NickWalker]

.

Building on what mark said:

Title is a finding aid so if it changes unexpectedly that's a.pain.

Bibliography etc are for publication (however you publish) so consistency matters more.

By your argument, it would be a pain currently if you tweaked one of the template fields because your source title would then unexpectedly change. Currently the titles are not fixed (unless you untick the autogenerate title option). It seems odd to me that a title would autogenerate under some circumstances but not under some arbitrary other circumstance. If you want to use the title as a finding aid and therefore don't want it to change, there's an option already to fix the title.

[AdrianBruce]

There may be a more appropriate thread but... When updating source templates that have been used for existing source records, isn't there a bigger issue than just updating (maybe) the Source Title? Specifically, if I were to split a templated item into two or merge two into one, how are the old templated items handled?

If ItemA splits into a revised ItemA (i.e. the same name) plus new ItemB, that seems innocuous. Unless ItemA changes format?

If ItemA splits into a new ItemB plus ItemC, that seems to maroon data in ItemA, possibly making it difficult to access if ItemA is actually removed from the Template. (JoopvB was working on something around this in March 2021 - see https://fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=19055 )

If templated ItemX and ItemY are merged to create ItemZ, then if ItemX and ItemY are removed from the source template, then again the data in them becomes difficult to access (unless someone wants to dispute this).

Some of this might be more easily handled procedurally - e.g. don't do XXXX when updating templates or do YYYY but do it in two stages...

Or am I (a generic source only user) seeing issues where none exist in practice??? (I'm asking because I'm totally certain that if I did ever start a project with templated sources, then I'd be altering templates in flight, perhaps a long way down the line).

[Mark1834]

Adrian - I think that is actually a much bigger issue.

Deleting template fields or changing their definition when they are already populated in linked sources is fraught with risks, and very easily results in data loss. It's true that FH is not always consistent in how/if it warns of this (yes when syncing with a definition, no when editing the template directly), but that's not what we are doing here. Updating a title is merely rearranging the building blocks. Modifying fields is redesigning the individual blocks.

It's worthy of discussion, if only to set reasonable expectation boundaries over what templates can and can't do, but I think it needs its own thread and real examples to work through.

[ColeValleyGirl]

By your argument, it would be a pain currently if you tweaked one of the template fields because your source title would then unexpectedly change. Currently the titles are not fixed (unless you untick the autogenerate title option). It seems odd to me that a title would autogenerate under some circumstances but not under some arbitrary other circumstance. If you want to use the title as a finding aid and therefore don't want it to change, there's an option already to fix the title.

Nick, I'm not arguing for any changes to the current functionality, as I'm happy with how it works now. I was making an argument in support of the fact that there isn't a 'significant deficiency' but rather a simple preference among some users for a different way of working.

I'm also of the (possibly) minority opinion that continually tweaking Templates and/or Source records is a waste of time; there's no need for perfection when good enough will do. I do have the luxury of having a set of templates I've been using for over 12 years, but will probably adopt one of the standard sets when I get around to actually doing some more genealogy. Both Strathclyde University and ESM know more about the subject of citation than I do, so I see no need to reinvent the wheel. (I also have the battle scars from rescuing more than one project that had foundered on the users' decision that they wanted to pay for an off the shelf system because it would cost less, and then customise the h*ll out of it so that they didn't need to change 'the way they'd always worked'. I have sworn never to be one of those users )

[AdrianBruce]

... It's worthy of discussion, if only to set reasonable expectation boundaries over what templates can and can't do, but I think it needs its own thread and real examples to work through.

I agree - I've set up a thread viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21427