dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

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

Hi Hugo,
AFAIK, that is not possible, but  maybe the devs can advise on this.

Regards,
Jason



On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Marcos Antonio <
mlantonio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> I followed your suggestion in the bullets 1 and 2 . So my doubt is how to
> hide the inactive facility in the list of facilities?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hugo
>
>
>
> *From:* Jason Pickering [mailto:jason.p.pickering@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* sexta-feira, 4 de Abril de 2014 11:50
> *To:* Lars Helge Øverland
> *Cc:* Wilson,Randy; Marcos Antonio; dhis2-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> dhis2-devs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [Dhis2-devs] [Dhis2-users] Inactive Organisation Unit
>
>
>
> I sort of agree with all of this, but the issue for us has been historical
> reporting completeness rates. AFAIK, the analytics process does not respect
> the "Closed date", but I could be wrong, and there is no history in the
> dataset to remember when a facility was reporting, and when it stopped
> reporting. As an example, maybe there are 11 facilities in a district
> during 2013. If 11 reports come in during this period, then the reporting
> completeness is 100%. If a facility closes in 2014, and deallocate this
> inactive facility, then the current reporting completeness will be OK, but
> the historical reporting completeness (i.e. for 2013) will now be
> calculated as 11/10, or greater than 100%. It seems rather complex, so I
> can see why it has not been implemented. However my suggestion would be that
>
>
>
> 1) Leave an inactive facility in the dataset.
>
> 2) The analytics process should respect the "Opening" and "Closed" dates
> when calculating reporting completenes. If the facility is still allocated
> to a dataset but inactive, you should not be able to enter data for it, but
> it SHOULD be counted for reporting completeness for the time period for
> which it was open.
>
>
>
> I think that is a rather superficial analysis and I am sure it would need
> to be developed better, but hope it helps to illustrate what the challenge
> is when removing a closed facility from a dataset.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> 4. Remove all associations between the org unit and data sets.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> Post to     : dhis2-devs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>