|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.6
Last Login: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Posts: 102,
Visits: 499
|
At a certain moment in time a brother in my family tree fostered a sun of another borther. The wife had tuberculoses and hence couldn't take care of the 1.5 year old child. When I added both connections to the child (I used a hyperlink between the two child instances, the results in the report generator are not what I hoped for.Here is the text for the foster father: Elbert and Aaltje were married in a civil ceremony on February 22nd, 1924 in Westbroek. They had a biological son named Albert. They also had a foster son named <Unknown>. There are no more children. Note that there IS NO biological son, and Albert was the only foster son. Here is the text for the biological father which is correct: Dirk and Marrigje were married in a civil ceremony on December 29th, 1916 in Maartensdijk.1 They had four sons and a daughter, named Wim, Gijs, Dirk, Albert and Cornelia. Here is the text for the son which doesn't refect that he was fostered..... Elbert, known as Albert, was born on June 16th, 1930 in Maartensdijk. Albert's father was Dirk Boshuis and his mother was Marrigje Oudshoorn. His paternal grandparents were Willem Boshuis and Anna Verhoef; his maternal grandparents were Gijsbert Oudshoorn and Cornelia Clasina van Ommeren. He had three brothers and a sister, named Wim, Gijs, Dirk and Cornelia. He is the youngest of the five children. I tried removing and adding the foster relationship without any effect. Do you have any suggestions? rgds, Ronald
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.6
Last Login: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Posts: 102,
Visits: 499
|
Ron?Is this something in your court or is it Dan's? rgds, Ronald
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.0
Last Login: 4 hours ago
Posts: 1,595,
Visits: 32,483
|
If you construct the family like this there should be no problem
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.6
Last Login: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Posts: 102,
Visits: 499
|
You're right. Thanks a lot, at least I can continue....However, I'd say this is a bug, if you use the hyperlink there should not be a difference in behaviour.... If the fathers (foster and biological) are not close together, the tree becomes a real mess... rgds, Ronald
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.6
Last Login: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Posts: 102,
Visits: 499
|
It also points to the suspiction that this is a bug in Genopro, and not the Report Generator....For the Report Generator, it should be exactly the same, whether or not I am using a hyperlinked son or a directly connected son. rgds, Ronald
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:23 PM
Posts: 3,464,
Visits: 26,854
|
It is probably is down to the Narrative Report (i.e. me). I had to construct lookup tables for non-biological pedigree links as these are not included in the standard tags. However I overlooked the possibility of hyperlinks when I wrote the code. I need to revisit this area of the report as I can see better ways of achieving the result now. I have had a quick look but at present I cannot see where the 'ghost' children are coming from! But it will be fixed. I can easily reproduce the problem so I have something to go on.
'lego audio video erro ergo disco' or "I read, I listen, I watch, I make mistakes, therefore I learn"
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators
Moderators
Customers
Gamma
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
Translator
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Posts: 4,886,
Visits: 22,799
|
Perhaps GenoPro should do something about this. Anyone has suggestions? I think I saw suggestions in other posts, however I cannot find the original post. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:23 PM
Posts: 3,464,
Visits: 26,854
|
There does seem to be a bug in GenoPro when handling pedigree links from hyperlinked individuals. A foster link from a hyperlink is indicated incorrectly as not being adopted whereas a similar link to a non-hyperlinked individual is shown as being adopted (see diagram below).Also if the hyperlinked child is deleted (grandson2 under son1) then the foster link is lost, when it should get transfered to the remaining 'real' individual (grandson2 under son2), since deleting hyperlinks should not cause loss of relationships. 
By the way, 'Is Adopted' should be 'Is Adopted or Fostered', but that is not the issue here.
'lego audio video erro ergo disco' or "I read, I listen, I watch, I make mistakes, therefore I learn"
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators
Moderators
Customers
Gamma
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
Translator
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Posts: 4,886,
Visits: 22,799
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.6
Last Login: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Posts: 102,
Visits: 499
|
I do not see a difference. Also, the version number doesn't change!rgds, Ronald
|