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

Feature Request - add units to values of container dimensions #39

Open
Jegelewicz opened this issue Jun 22, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

Feature Request - add units to values of container dimensions #39

Jegelewicz opened this issue Jun 22, 2023 · 6 comments
Labels
Enhancement I think this would make Arctos even awesomer! Priority-Normal (Not urgent) Normal because this needs to get done but not immediately.

Comments

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

Jegelewicz commented Jun 22, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I did not know that all container measurements are required to be in cm - see ArctosDB/arctos#6427

Describe what you're trying to accomplish

Why do I have to convert to cm? Why can't this form accept any length units from the code table? https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctlength_units

Describe the solution you'd like

Add a units field for the length/width/height values in container dimensions

  • See discussion, this is one new field, container_units, which applies to (length, width, height)

Additional context

  1. See Request - Change the order of dimensions on object tracking so they are always in the same order arctos#8221 - order container dimensions as (length, width, height)
  2. Same source: Splat-F depth - stick with (length, width, height), don't use alternative labels
@Jegelewicz Jegelewicz added the Enhancement I think this would make Arctos even awesomer! label Jun 22, 2023
@Jegelewicz Jegelewicz changed the title Feature Request - Feature Request - add units to values of container dimensions Jun 22, 2023
@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS
Copy link

This would be useful.

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Jun 23, 2023

Not much opinion from me, but there are considerations.

  1. It would add complexity - I'm not sure if you're asking for 1 or 3 fields, either way has its own problems. I suspect this is a significant impact on usability, but ??
  2. It would add some cost - I'd have to convert before doing the volume comparison (but PG is very good at that sort of thing, probably not hugely significant).
  3. I'd probably just report stuff in 'base units' - meters in this case (at least without some significant complexity, still probably)

And (4) means I might also lose some precision in the converting, but that's probably negligible.

@mvzhuang
Copy link

Well i currently plan in inches because all the external blueprints we get are in Imperial - so having to convert to CM for Arctos and then convert it back if I ever need that information again (which does come up occasionally) is impacting the usability of the feature. But the pt is it needs to be consistently up front across documentation if we just stick to CM. I've accidentally used inches twice now and had to go back and redo things.

  1. If we go towards choosing own units, 1 additional units field should be enough. I doubt anyone would mix units across volume measurements. And main function as I see it is to make sure internal containers don't exceed external sizes and then provide info to future planners in a spot that makes sense and is easily accessible.
  2. Shouldn't need to convert if just assuming everyone currently is on cm? People after can decide if they want to convert.

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Jun 23, 2023

Thanks @mvzhuang that seems pretty compelling.

re (2) - I'm not sure if it's displayed anywhere but I calculate volume for a check.

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member Author

Suggest one unit field for all three length measurements.

@dustymc dustymc transferred this issue from ArctosDB/arctos Sep 5, 2024
@campmlc

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement I think this would make Arctos even awesomer! Priority-Normal (Not urgent) Normal because this needs to get done but not immediately.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants