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

Fix Search cube Side Bar Annotations/Name #65

Open
walbuc opened this issue Sep 16, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Fix Search cube Side Bar Annotations/Name #65

walbuc opened this issue Sep 16, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@walbuc
Copy link
Contributor

walbuc commented Sep 16, 2024

It would be nice to organize the annotations in a way that is not restrictive to have a hard hierarchy topic -> subtopic -> table.

Context:

the old explorer used to have 4 levels: topic, subtopic, table, cube;
in descending order, when one of these levels did not have multiple options, the following lines would not show and that level would be offered as a single button
since most of the configurations would have 'table' as unique items, the 'cube' select would never show up and only 3 levels were assumed.
however in cases where the annotations would not be set, the cube name/caption would be used by default
btw, we agreed to assume these annotations would always be present, as they are useful anyway to classify long lists of cubes so when they are not there, we can assume that's a bug in the schema


Seba:
Now, I'm fine with this being a restriction, so we enforce some kind of organization on the schema, but I also think there might be some cases where having a 2 levels of grouping might be overkill
Following the IDJ example, we have so few cubes that I think we can do Economy, Employment and Education Topics, but enforcing subtopics might lead to some of them having a single cube

Francisco:
I agree, these levels have been kind of a directive that's only intended to work to reduce the cognitive load on the final user that's exploring the available data; if we are able to present the options in a more friendly way, any replacement would be good enough

@scespinoza
Copy link
Contributor

We can maybe revisit this when Francisco finishes the olap client migration. This is not a blocker for datasaudi at least, we have the full Topic/Subtopic structure in place

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants