Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RSR validation sets #243

Open
nadiagorchakova opened this issue Jan 18, 2017 · 0 comments
Open

RSR validation sets #243

nadiagorchakova opened this issue Jan 18, 2017 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@nadiagorchakova
Copy link

Created via Reamaze:

Link: https://rsrsupport.reamaze.com/admin/conversations/suggestion-for-rsr-validation-sets

Message:
hi RSR team,

The validations sets are increasingly used and I notice some difficulties users experience with it - in order of priority:

  • users select multiple validations sets and are not aware what this means
  • users do not understand what the practival difference are between the validation sets, especially the “IATI’ validation set
  • users can see and use validation sets of other organisations

I like to suggest the following to improve this:

change the interface to a dropdown of validation sets; the user can select only one (if does not make sense to select multiple)
rename the set ‘IATI’ to ‘IATI to 'All available fields’ removing mandatory fields for IATI (still show them but remove the fact they are mandatory). And add an IATI basic validation set with just the IATI mandatory fields (according to the validation rules), hiding all others. That way an organisation can simply see what they minimally need to do to comply with IATI validation rules but by switching to ‘All fields’ they can see what else is available.
link organisation specifc sets to organisations - users linked to these organisations and their partners can see the dataset.

Geert, Charlotte, Christien provided input for this write-up

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant