Namibia: Update the Planning Tool Structure Targets to Read from the Uploaded csv

[samkanga]

The Namibia deployment would like to update the structure targets on the planning tool for different operational areas to be based on the targets uploaded through the csv file on the jurisdiction Meta data.

Presently, if a user downloads the jurisdiction metadata csv for Namibia, the targets differ from those in the planning tool targets. An example is the jurisdiction named Onambango. From the csv file it has a target of 655. See screenshot below:

However, when a user accesses a draft plan through the planning tool, the targets given for the same location reads 165. See screenshot below.

Requirement:
The number of structures in the Assign jurisdiction page should match those the targets from the targets set in jurisdiction metadata document

[moshthepitt]

@samkanga the planning tool exclusively reads data from the jurisdictions API in OpenSRP, and the number returned is the structure count for the jurisdictions in the API database. I'm not for a change to make it read from other APIs.

[samkanga]

@moshthepitt what are alternatives to meeting the above requirement? A thought in my mind from your explanation is whether the structure counts can then be updated by re-uploading the jurisdictions with the required counts? However, I don't know what would be impacted by this. cc: @Rkareko

[moshthepitt]

@samkanga I think the misconception is that the above figures constitute a "target number of structures". This is not the case. The above figures are the actual numbers of structures uploaded to the database. Therefore, to have different numbers show up here, we would need to upload more structures to the OpenSRP database.

[samkanga]

@moshthepitt I have had additional discussions with the client on this and they have indicated they want a change on the values used on the planning tool. i.e. from getting the number of structures from the jurisdictions API to the uploaded csv. Could you define what would be impacted if we made this change so we have a clearer picture of this change.

[moshthepitt]

@samkanga who is in charge of managing this product and how it should be built/improved?

[samkanga]

@moshthepitt, I am tagging @mberg and @rowo who are in-charge of the product vision and development for their thoughts on this.

[samkanga]

@moshthepitt I wanted to check if the reservations you had on this ticket have been addressed sufficiently and if we can progress work on the ticket.

[moshthepitt]

@samkanga I think our discussions are not concluded, am I wrong?

[samkanga]

@moshthepitt I had missed a thread on that conversation. You are right in the discussion is not concluded.