> On Nov 8, 2017, at 3:04 AM, Jan Mulder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Did some analysis on my logbook (that I have stored as a local git repo, so > not an ssrf/xml). I found approx. 10 dive sites that had 0 dives connected to > it. They all seemed the result of misspelling of the dive site name, and > correcting it later. > > On 07-11-17 21:50, Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote: >> in MapWidgetHelper::reloadMapLocations() we do not skip such and >> markers are added for them. >> judging from the Marble port that i did, we had the same behavior there. >> also, not exactly sure how this ended up happening, but i need some >> decision making here: >> - should we discard these at the parsing stage? > > Not sure about this one. When we make shure that we never save dive sites > without dives attached to it (see below), there is no need to add any logic > for this. > >> - should we discard this at the saving stage? > > The fix for this is easy, and it seems wise to implement this (I will create > a PR for review). Why would we keep carrying around site data that is not > related to any dive? Obviously, this introduces the issue that you cannot > "clone" dive sites any more to attach your dives later to it, but I do not > see that as a relevant use case, as it involves manual editing of the logbook > storage (as we do not have true dive site management).
I honestly thought that we already did that. I was wondering if we had a discussion of this subject on the mailing list but my Google-Fu didn't come up with anything specifically about this. To me it seems to make sense that we'd discard sites that aren't connected to dives. Subsurface is a dive log, not a dive site log. And yes, simply not saving them does seem to address all of the issues. /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
