[Health-dev] [bug #63626] Improvements for address management

[Mathias Behrle]

URL:
  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63626>

                 Summary: Improvements for address management
                 Project: GNU Health
               Submitter: yangoon
               Submitted: Fri 06 Jan 2023 07:34:26 PM UTC
                Category: Functionality
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open
                 Release: None
         Discussion Lock: Any
                  Module: health
               Component: None


    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comments:


-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 06 Jan 2023 07:34:26 PM UTC By: Mathias Behrle <yangoon>
GNUHealth has the concept of 'Domiciliary Unit' which is more a less an
extension of party.address. For me there are some issues with the concept.

- gnuhealth.du duplicates the main fields of party.address which is
unfortunate from the POV of database normalization
- gnuhealth.du lives in parallel with party.address, but without sync or
relation of the two models. This may lead to quite unexpected results for the
user, because if a party.address is added 'Main address' remains empty or
shows something different.
- gnuhealth.du has exactly one required field: 'code'. It is painful and error
prone to fill in this field with some meaningful and standardized data. I
think this field could be removed and instead of 'code' a meaningful rec_name
of the model could be constructed.
- It is only possible to define one DU per party. There are many cases where
people live in several DUs.

I think gnuhealth.du would basically be better modelled as an extension of
party.address, thus profiting from all features of the address model (like
autocompletion of address data etc.) and reducing two models into one. This
would also save the need of synchronization between the two parallel models
which is currently missing.

What do you think?







    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63626>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/