Many users have requested certain fields be added to various tables. Currently, table schema extensions can only be done if added in a future release by the development team. However, @pblom is interested in the ability to add fields to a table as a user. Specifically, he needs a boolean field on the Collecting Event table.
Please reply to this post if you are in support of this feature! We are also interested to know of any other field addition requests the community is seeking.
Count us in! Although I can see it getting kind of messy with updates in the future. It might be good to limit the overall number of fields that can be added and standardize their non-localized names.
I would also be in support of not allowing this at the user level, but having a more formal process and schedule for consortium members to request new fields in tables that get added on a regular schedule after an institution requests a change and at least one other institution “seconds” the motion.
As Bronwyn indicated we desire to have a boolean in our CE table and simply being able to add it without troubling Support seems beneficial to all. This assumes that a museum’s Specify administrators would have sufficient knowledge and capability to make appropriate additions.
While this on the one hand seems like an appropriate activity for the museum level, I share Nate’s concern about a messy future without some guidelines, at least a specific procedure and set of tools; keep some sideboards on the process. It seems like his suggestion in paragraph 2 would be a reasonable approach as long seconding does not take too long.
“Too long” could perhaps be given temporal definition within a procedure, so that the Community would be given X amount of days to respond before the new field could be added. This bit of slow down I could appreciate, for others may suggest a sufficient alternative to adding of the field of which I am unaware.
I would prefer to just add yesNo1, yesNo2 and yesNo3 to the CollectingEvent table. Adding the capability for users (or admins I imagine) to add their own fields to tables is a massive undertaking for a feature that hardly anybody will use. It also contravenes the data model, which has repurposable fields and an editable schema, and it will make data less reusable. I agree with @nfshoobs’s suggestion.
