dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Jason Pickering <jason.p.pickering@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bob,
I agree with your next point, to some extent.

> But we also want to be able to categorize orgunits in non-binary terms
> - the ownership example being a good one.  We have successfully
> mobilized the groupset idea to implement this - perhaps this could in
> fact be implemented independently of the group idea ie. having a 1st
> class coded dimension along the lines of a category.

However,  thus my suggestion that the _orgunitgroupsetstructure should
ONLY contain exclusive group sets as columns. This is the only way it
makes any sense.

>
> I wonder if Chet's problem is actually solved by NOT putting these
> groups into a services groupset.

How would this be done? An orgunit group for each possible combination
of services, thereby ensuring exclusivity?
Sounds very painful and repitious when this should be able to be
accomplished through assignment to multiple orgunit groups.

>This is probably
> relatively simple sql - but would result in a very wide resource
> table,

In fact, it would be require procedural code to produce the crosstab
(at least with Postgres) as is done with the resource tables. We have
no idea how many columns there would be prima facie. I am not sure
what "wide" actually means, and not sure it would be any "wider" than
creating a PMTCT orgunit group and a PMTCT orgunit group set and a ART
orgunit group and an ART orgunit groupset etc etc. Just seems
pointless when we know that in the case of services, implementing
partners, projects, programmes, etc we know there may be multiple
attributes associated with a particular orgunit.

 The alternative workaround, for which gui already exists so
> its a current workaround, is possibly my earlier suggestion of placing
> such groups on their own into their own groupset for the purpose of
> making an appearance in the resource table..

Yes, but this seems to be exactly the same as the proposed
_orgunitgroupstructure table which would require a separate exclusive
groupset for each possible group that the orgunit could belong to.

In a way, it sounds like we are debating the old issue with DHIS 1.4,
and exclusive and non-exclusive groupsets. I obviously do not know the
full history of why it was removed in both 1.4 and 2, but I am still
not convinced it was the right move.

Regards,
Jason