GNU Health - Bugs: bug #63626, Improvements for address management
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #63626: Improvements for address management
Submitter: | Mathias Behrle <yangoon> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 06 Jan 2023 07:34:26 PM UTC | ||
Category: | Functionality | Severity: | 1 - Wish |
Item Group: | None | Status: | Need Info |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | meanmicio |
Open/Closed: | Open | Release: | 4.3.0 |
Module: | health | Component: | Hospital Management |
Sun 15 Jan 2023 12:41:22 PM UTC, comment #2: |
Mathias Behrle <yangoon> |
Mon 09 Jan 2023 11:40:43 AM UTC, comment #1: Hi, Mathias!
|
Luis Falcon <meanmicio> |
Fri 06 Jan 2023 07:34:26 PM UTC, original submission:
GNUHealth has the concept of 'Domiciliary Unit' which is more a less an extension of party.address. For me there are some issues with the concept.
|
Mathias Behrle <yangoon> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 5 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2023-01-09 | meanmicio | Severity | 3 - Normal | 1 - Wish | |
Status | None | Need Info | |||
Assigned to | None | meanmicio | |||
Release | None | 4.3.0 | |||
Component | None | Hospital Management |
Powered by Savane 3.13-02a9.
Corresponding source code
Hi Luis!
comment #1:
Well, at the end you want to know where (and possibly how) the person/patient lives and can be contacted. It could be under a bridge and they could be travelling just using a post box etc. etc..
party.address and gnuhealth.du have so many fields in common that for me applies the same as in https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?63627#comment5 for parties/patients. party.address should be extended to add the features of the domiciliary unit. It would reduce the place to manage those person related data to one canonical place and make superflouus the error prone synchronization of redundant models.
I wouldn't make the field generally required, but readonly when declared as an official cadastral code. I think most important and user friendly is a sensible rec_name for facile identification and search.
I currently see nothing that couldn't be implemented as extension of the party.address model.
Best,
Mathias