...
For farmExpenseType, should use the existing convention around NULL or populated farm_id as to whether the type belongs to a specific farm or is universal
...
Discussion on -
For purposes of this discussion “Misc” and “Other” are equivalent. David feels strongly that “Miscellaneous” is better.
When a user clicks to add a “Misc” expense, we highlight
For retaining “Other” or “Misc” | For removing “Other” or “Misc” |
|---|---|
Makes user experience for one-off expenses simpler | Makes data messy and difficult to categorize for the user |
Feels right | Makes data messy and difficult to categorize for the researcher |
Users may end up with a large list of one-off expense types that aren’t re-used | Will reduce usage and efficacy of configurable expense types |
If there is a single “Misc” category for all users, this makes it easier for scientists to review | Users can create their own “Miscellaneous” if they wanted |
For a future integration with Quickbook like tool, they will likely have a “Miscellaneous” |
Against adding legacy “Other” entries to custom expense types | For adding legacy “Other” entries to custom expense types |
|---|---|
Assumes the Note entered is a re-usable type (which is only partially supported in the data) | Introduces user to new feature automatically |
M | |
V1.0 has an “Other” type that should be removed in favour of documenting custom expense types. Ideally, each of these would be migrated to be custom expense types for the farm where they are created.
...