You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
However, currently a Node (Betriebspunkt or BP in german, Operational Point or OP in english for business) can have the same name and shortname, for instance :
when we create 2 nodes without renaming any of it
or just when we rename one with the informations of an existing one
In the code, the nodes are identified by the id, but for the user, who doesn't have access to the ids, it can be confusing, especially in the graphic timetable (Streckengrafik)
Solution
User can choose (or not) to enable node unicity at any time in a scenario.
It could be a box to check in the Settings menu.
The box would be only enabled (or visible) when all the nodes of the variants are unique. If not, the box is disabled and a message explains why on mouse hover (or simply not visible).
Consequence : if node unicity is true, when a user creates a node that has the same name / shortname than another one (open discussion), we can:
create the new node with something like "{name}-1" if another copy exists ("...-2" if another one etc...)
cancel creation
show error message for user understanding
Questions
Do we want the combinaison of name and shortname to be unique ? Or only name ? Or only shortname ?
It might be a good idea to only display the "unique" checkbox if this option is activated in the application's environment, otherwise, it adds more complexity to the Netzgrafik-Editor with respect to the standard way of working, which should be avoided. In many applications, such as quickly trying out ideas, it does not matter if the node names are unique because the created data will not be shared with third parties.
Answer question - what should be unique
I recommend that only the short name be unique, such as 0085BN (0085 Switzerland / BN: Bern). However, we could have more than one "Bern" – How should the operation point be encoded: encodable country code + short name / or unique UIC operation point code.
Validation (current version) - what might improve usability of Netzgrafik-Editor
In the current version, the user can still encode the node's short name to be unique, but there is no double-check/validation available. This missing validation of uniqueness makes the Netzgrafik-Editor easy to use but quite complicated for exchanging data with third parties. Thus it might be worthfull having a validator in the current system, which "flags" all node's short names that are not unique with a warning element - but allow them to exist.
Having unique and mandatory operational point names on nodes would be very helpful, especially when converting the network graphic export into different timetable formats, which often involve coordinate lookups.
To enhance consistency and accuracy I would propose the following changes:
The operational point name should be a mandatory field.
Implement input validations, such as restricting trailing whitespaces.
Preflight Checklist
Request type
Request for enhancement of a component (
Node
constructor).Functionality
Context
According to business structures, a
Node
BP is unique.However, currently a
Node
(Betriebspunkt
orBP
in german,Operational Point
orOP
in english for business) can have the same name and shortname, for instance :In the code, the nodes are identified by the
id
, but for the user, who doesn't have access to theids
, it can be confusing, especially in the graphic timetable (Streckengrafik)Solution
User can choose (or not) to enable node unicity at any time in a scenario.
It could be a box to check in the Settings menu.
The box would be only enabled (or visible) when all the nodes of the variants are unique. If not, the box is disabled and a message explains why on mouse hover (or simply not visible).
Consequence : if node unicity is true, when a user creates a node that has the same name / shortname than another one (open discussion), we can:
Questions
Examples
Invalid combinations of nodes:
Valid combinations of nodes:
Link to design proposal file
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: