By Nand - Monday, April 8, 2019
|
GenoPro version 3.0.1.4, English Narrative Report skin 2018.03.09 Is there a simple way to detect/correct missing union dates in multiple union families? Example: Albert has been married twice, the first time to Bernadette, the second time to Camilla (notice the A-B-C sequence in this test data). The date of the first wedding is not known and has not been filled in.
This results in a wrong sequence of marriages in the report (extra text was removed) The same is true for the auto-arrange function which inverts first and second marriage. Also the timeline has problems with this. Here the first marriage was simply omitted.
The only work-around I found is to use a approximate date like “~1955” in the “Unions/UnionDate” field. (In the picture above we are looking at the “General/Display Text” values but the same values were put in the “Unions/Union Date” fields). Now the sequenceis OK.
(extra text wasremoved) The timeline is now also correct. Note that the end of the firstmarriage is automatically derived from the death date of the first wife, Bernadette.
QUESTION 1: Would it make sense to suggest an approximate first marriage start date derived from either the birth date of a first child (if any) or from the fact that the firstwife died before the second marriage took place. I do realise there is no fool proof solution for this. What if there are no children in the first marriage? What if there is a second union before the first spouse dies? Maybe the best solution would be to raise an error condition and let the problem spotter signal this? QUESTION 2: In the meanwhile, how can I detect the other marriages where this is the case? I’m only looking for multiple marriages where one of them has no union date filled in. Single unions without a union date cause no problems. [For one or the other reason I'm loosing some spaces in the text above. No idea why this happens.]
|
By genome - Monday, April 8, 2019
|
Select Albert and display Properties dialogue, select Family tab, click Change Mate Order, click 'Use spouse order form the list below', rearrange list order.
|
By Nand - Monday, April 8, 2019
|
Hi Genome. Thank you for this procedure. This is indeed better than using fake dates. However, the main problem lies in identifying the families where one of the (multiple) union dates is missing. I have over 1000 families in my tree which does not make it simple to spot the problem cases. I'll think about writing a small program to do so. No big deal. But maybe this could be added as a function to the problem spotter?
|
By genome - Wednesday, April 10, 2019
|
I cannot see Dan doing any GenoPro enhancement any time soon whilst fully committed to GenoProX.
But a simple script with the Report Generator can help. e.g. <%[Report.LogComment('Families with no union date of individuals having multiple unions but no \'Mate Order\' set','#00a0ff'); Report.LogComment('========================================================','#00a0ff'); var found ='', sep='', num = 0; for (var f = 0; f < Families.Count; f++) { var fam = Families(f); if (fam.Marriage.Date.Year == '') { // No Union or no union date if (found.indexOf('/'+fam.ID+'/') == -1) { for (var p = 0; p < fam.Parents.Count; p++) { var ind = fam.Parents(p); if (ind.Mates.Count > 1 && ind.TagValue('Families.Order').length == 0) { // a partner in the unmion has more than one mate and no mate order set Report.LogComment(fam + ' ('+ fam.ID + ') on genomap '+ fam.Position.GenoMap,'#00a0ff'); found+='/'+fam.ID+'/'+sep; sep = ';' } } } } } if (found != '') num = found.split(';').length; Report.LogComment(''+num +' famil'+ (num != 1 ? 'ies' : 'y')+' found','#00a0ff'); Report.LogComment('Report Complete','#2f30cd') |
|
By Nand - Tuesday, April 23, 2019
|
Nice tool Genome. A "must have" for all of us. You might even consider generating a separate web page with the report results, no? Right now I'm trying to figure out why your tool mentions 71 missing dates while mine only sees 19 (in a total of 1110 families). Mine does not mention cases where a "mate order" has been defined, but there are also some differences which need further investigation. I'll let you know if I find something relevant. As far as I am concerned, I'll never live old enough to see the birth of GenoProX, so I intend to stick to the non-X version.
|
By genome - Thursday, April 25, 2019
|
I was reporting the same individual for each of his/her unions. I have amended my earlier reply to fix this and also exclude individuals with mate order set. The later took a while to sort out as the Report Generator API doesn't seem to expose the Individual Families.Order property correctly. The zipped skin is also updated.
|
By vlepore - Thursday, April 25, 2019
|
I note that in the list, if the marriage dates are not complete (only the year, without day and month), they are indicated as missing. I would also suggest adding the surname to the Report.logComment (.... + ' ' + ind.Name.Last + ....): only the first name is sometimes not enough.
Thanks, genome
|
By Nand - Thursday, April 25, 2019
|
I can confirm this finding. Also, when using approximate dates like ~1890 these are considered as missing. But I also found a false positive where all dates were filled in but reported as missing and a few cases that should have been reported but were not. I'll try to prepare a test sample to reproduce the test conditions.
|
By Nand - Thursday, April 25, 2019
|
All false positives I tested have one thing in common: they mention a "religious marriage" as union type.
|
By Nand - Thursday, April 25, 2019
|
I included a small GenoGram with 2 test cases. The top chart is the one with the "religious marriages" that were reported as having no dates mentioned. In the bottom chart a few dates are missing. The missing ones were listed in the previous version of the skin, not the latest. I also added screenshots of the results after executing both versions of the skin.
|
By genome - Thursday, April 25, 2019
|
Thanks testers, now maybe third time lucky? or 'if at first you don't succeed, try, try again'. Why are things never so simple as they first appear?
the main problem lies in identifying the families where one of the (multiple) union dates is missing. |
So I misread the brief, I was reporting individuals with missing dates on one or more of their unions, not the families themselves. I have now changed the report heading to be Families with no union date of individuals having multiple unions but no \'Mate Order\' set |
A bit of a mouthful but I think that covers it. I don't know why the Report Generator API considers Family Marriage.Date blank when only the year is present, as it shows up fine in the Families Table Layout View. Anyway just testing for a year seems to do the trick. Once again I have edited my earlier post and updated the zip
|
By Nand - Friday, April 26, 2019
|
Yes, this looks OK. The reports of the different tools seem to match. I have included the output of the Missing Union Dates skin report and two (tandem) reports from my tool. I'm listing the individuals for which a manual mate order has been declared in a separate report. This makes it easier for me to find out which dates I still have to look up. There must be more people out there who made the same mistake as I did. When you are drawing the genealogy tree you do not realise that the reported information might be organised different.
|