GNU Health - Bugs: bug #46665, sex should not be required
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #46665: sex should not be required
Submitter: | Cédric Krier <cedk> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 11 Dec 2015 04:23:12 AM UTC | ||
Category: | Functionality | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | None | Status: | Works For Me |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Release: | None |
Module: | health | Component: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Tue 15 Dec 2015 11:05:21 AM UTC, comment #8: |
Cédric Krier <cedk> |
Tue 15 Dec 2015 10:48:39 AM UTC, comment #7: Not, because the already existing (None,'') will be available only when the boolan flag "Needs review" is set (making the gender field not required at that point), and that's where it becomes a deliberated, thought action from the operator. |
Luis Falcon <meanmicio> |
Tue 15 Dec 2015 10:03:24 AM UTC, comment #6: This goes against your previous statement that said the choice of the sex value should be conscientious. So if None is the default then it is no more a conscientious value that why I propose to add a Unknown value which is not the default and could be used when the sex is required. |
Cédric Krier <cedk> |
Tue 15 Dec 2015 09:30:24 AM UTC, comment #5: We already have the (None,'') option that would be -nearly- equivalent to 'Unknown', that would be available and default when the required state is not set.
|
Luis Falcon <meanmicio> |
Mon 14 Dec 2015 08:15:21 PM UTC, comment #4: I don't see how having two fields will improve the quality.
|
Cédric Krier <cedk> |
Mon 14 Dec 2015 06:54:23 PM UTC, comment #3: While semantically equivalent, setting the boolean flag requires a deliberate, conscious action from the operator, that detects an anomaly. This minimizes human error, and restricts the values set of the field.
|
Luis Falcon <meanmicio> |
Sun 13 Dec 2015 08:55:16 AM UTC, comment #2: The boolean proposal is semantically the same as mine to add a new option "Unknown" except that my solution doesn't add an extra field which should be tested all over the code before using the sex field. |
Cédric Krier <cedk> |
Sat 12 Dec 2015 11:21:22 AM UTC, comment #1: Although it can happen, in daily, interactive operation is statistically unremarkable. Most demographics are initially taken and reviewed in presence of the person, or automatically filled in at the moment of birth.
|
Luis Falcon <meanmicio> |
Fri 11 Dec 2015 04:23:12 AM UTC, original submission:
I think it can happen that a user has to enter a party of type person but without knowing the sex of the person.
|
Cédric Krier <cedk> |
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 2 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016-03-02 | meanmicio | Status | None | Works For Me | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed |
Powered by Savane 3.13-f8d8.
Corresponding source code
I find this design very cumbersome when adding just a value to the selection simple, efficient and error prone.