Submitting multiple parties or locations per xform submission

[linzjax]

Summary

Currently you can only submit one location and one party per xform submission. Users want to submit multiple parties for a single location, or multiple locations for a single party.

We should find a way to make repeat work and create multiple relationships and entities.

Links to requirements and functional testing script

Requirements

Acceptance criteria

Task list (including tests)

[linzjax]

@wonderchook double checking I understand the requirements:
So the user wants to have one object (party or location, in this case let's go with Party) to attach multiple other objects to (locations)

So the user will end up with a single location object, with multiple tenure relationships connecting it to multiple party objects. So the repeat function will be creating a new party object with every repeat. Is this correct?

We should not allow to nest more than one party_attributes group within a single begin repeat and end repeat

I'm not clear on why this is a problem. If we're creating a new object every time, would we want to group all of that information together into one repeat?

[wonderchook]

I'm not sure exactly that this means either. @dpalomino will have to enlighten us.

Your understanding of the repeat of either a location or a party is correct. Picture a person that owns more than one property or a group of people that have rights to one property.

[dpalomino]

Hi @linzjax, @wonderchook. Sorry if that was not clear enough, let me explain more in detail (I can update the requirements page later on).

I was referring to the fact of having several entities within a begin/end repeat section. Something like this for instance:

'''
begin repeat
begin group party_attributes_default
text description Description
...
end group

begin group party_attributes_individual
date dob Date of birth
...
end group

begin group party_attributes_group
text group_desc Description
...
end group

end repeat
''''

The only reason why I was suggesting this is to avoid excessive complexity, but I could be missing something. Maybe @linzjax if we could try to catch up tomorrow in your morning? We can see if makes sense to include this case....