TRANSECT_NUM field is not being populated

[stdavis]

I'm not sure it's ever been populated looking at the code. I wonder if there's any use for it since we already have TRANSECT_ID. Maybe we can just drop it from the table?

[nathankota]

@ToddVolkening what are your thoughts on this?

[stdavis]

Here's the field in the database:

[ToddVolkening]

Craig, It looks like the Transect_Num field is not being populated to the database, but a unique Transect_ID is. Scott and Nathan were wondering what our thoughts on this and whether it's an issue since the Transect_ID is being populated to the database. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think we need to record the Transect Number to the database or is the unique Transect ID sufficient? For a little background and context, you can view it on GitHub <#251 (comment)> Please let us know what you think. Thanks, ~Todd

…

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:29 PM Nathan Kota ***@***.***> wrote: @ToddVolkening <https://github.com/ToddVolkening> what are your thoughts on this? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#251 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIM2EQWYSQ5ZI6S4PSN4KW3TOFVC3ANCNFSM4447RAQA> .

-- Todd Volkening Senior GIS Analyst Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 801-244-5878 ***@***.***

[ToddVolkening]

I heard back from Craig Walker and responded " I think the transect ID is sufficient." On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:20 AM Todd Volkening ***@***.***> wrote:

…

Craig, It looks like the Transect_Num field is not being populated to the database, but a unique Transect_ID is. Scott and Nathan were wondering what our thoughts on this and whether it's an issue since the Transect_ID is being populated to the database. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think we need to record the Transect Number to the database or is the unique Transect ID sufficient? For a little background and context, you can view it on GitHub <#251 (comment)> Please let us know what you think. Thanks, ~Todd On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:29 PM Nathan Kota ***@***.***> wrote: > @ToddVolkening <https://github.com/ToddVolkening> what are your thoughts > on this? > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#251 (comment)>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIM2EQWYSQ5ZI6S4PSN4KW3TOFVC3ANCNFSM4447RAQA> > . > -- Todd Volkening Senior GIS Analyst Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 801-244-5878 ***@***.***

-- Todd Volkening Senior GIS Analyst Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 801-244-5878 ***@***.***

[nathankota]

Thanks @ToddVolkening. Scott is out this week. We will most likely wait until the new fiscal year when the agreement renews to deal with this, and start working the enhancements and updates back into our work schedule.

[stdavis]

This is just a database change. This field is no longer in the app.

[stdavis]

I've removed the TRANSECT_NUM field from the Transect table in both the dev and prod databases.

I also successfully tested submitting a report with transect data in dev.