Change the default columns of storage tree result

[kitchenprinzessin]

Hi
Is there a way we can change the default table view of the storage tree search to include additional fields? Currently, it only displays the Catalog Number, Taxon and Storage
Note: we can add additional fields after searching via the mapper, but I want to set default fields in the table

[Grant]

Hi @kitchenprinzessin,

Just to clarify, do you mean the fields that are included when you use the (Search) function from the tree interface?

If so, that is not customizable currently. The logic is hard-coded within Specify to only return these specific fields in the automatically created query:

specify/specify7/blob/08dc1042e592b069a58682bbe5a59691ef14a879/specifyweb/frontend/js_src/lib/components/QueryBuilder/fromTree.ts#L89-L103

[mcruz]

If you provide a list of the fields you want to add, then perhaps we can code up a custom version of this file for you to try out?

[kitchenprinzessin]

That will be great!
Here are the relevant fields:
collection object files - projectNumber, name
storage field - parent of the storage selected

[Grant]

Hi @mcruz and @kitchenprinzessin,

Unfortunately, we do not officially recommend modifying any Specify 7 files. You are welcome to propose a pull request to our GitHub repository or fork Specify 7, though either approach may result in slower updates or unpredictable behavior if extensive modifications are made.

[bronwynscc]

Hi @kitchenprinzessin,

A feature request has been opened for this topic:

Customizable Queries for Tree Node Search · Issue #7836 · specify/specify7 · GitHub.

Your name and institution are listed requestors for this feature. Feel free to review the request description on GitHub and let us know of any additional context that you’d like to see included there. Going forward, any updates on the status of this feature will also be found on the GitHub request.

Thank you for taking the time to post to the Speciforum! We appreciate your involvement in the community.

[nfshoobs]

Hey @Bronwyn, put OSU down for this too. I think this has come up on the forums before as well, but can’t find the thread. Specifically for us, the issue is that the synonymy relationships don’t get queried effectively by the default query, because the default query searches the node ID against the the determined taxonID field rather than the preferred taxonID field.