Please add "reverse" buttons in "Latest changes"
edited September 28, 2020 in Suggest an Idea
Bosch said: Today, a person has eliminated all relationships well documented of various ancestors. I completely ignore the reason of this destructive behavior (she is not answering) but now dozens of persons are alone without being linked to other people. It will be complicated to restore that, but I think ot could be much easy if I could go to "latest chanches" and push "Reverse" button that could undo any particular action made.
Chas Howell said: Maybe you have already checked but be sure to go and look at the PIDs in FS. The relationships may still be there and the Relationships Deleted you see on the Changes list may be showing only because of a Merge0
Bosch said: No merge. Various relationships during various generations deleted one by one. Dozens of persons alone.0
Brett said: Bosch
Although we would all love such, it is not as easy as you seem to think, in every case.
It is certainly much more complicated in most cases.
Roy F Hunt said: Bosh,
Your suggested solution has been in effect for a long time. instead of "Reverse" it says "Restore"0
Tom Huber said: I don't think Bosch is talking about merge-deleted records (although he could be). I think he is talking about persons being disconnected from their family.
There is a practical limit to what he is asking. I have several records where the Change Log is a number of pages in length. To find a change made and the original entry that could be restored has taken me though at least three pages (show more) of changes to find the restore.
This could be resolved by presenting both the before and after results of the change, with a restore button next to the before. That would quickly resolve Bosch's need without trying to figure out how far back to go with a reverse order sort on the change log's show all page.0
Bosch said: Well, I was talking about ALL changes. Maintenance should be easy.0
joe martel said: This "Reverse (this change)" approach to the changelog was considered in the design, but the "Restore (this value)" was chosen. There were tradeoffs.
The current Restore requires the user to see the chain of changes for that conclusion. Say a birth changed 4 times, say 1921, 1911, 1912, 1900 (going backwards). The user can see all those changes and how this conclusion progressed through time. But the user also has to go find the exact value they want to restore. Say it was 1912, and go back and Restore that one.
The Reverse approach would require step by step unraveling I think.
So If you hit Reverse on 1921, would it not be 1911?
Now you have 1911, 1921, 1911, 1912, 1900 right?
Now if you hit Reverse on the 1911 it would be 1921?
What if you hit Reverse on 1912, would it be 1900, or 1921?
Also, the current value is seen as maybe more important than previous values and in Restore it is explicit and there is no Restore of the current value. Would the concept of current be part of Reverse.
So maybe I'm missing something important and love to have continue this idea. Thanks0
Christine said: Bosch, I had that happen once and you are correct it often takes hours to fix. So sorry you have to deal with it.0