Add Batch Editing to Specify 7

[grantfitzsimmons]

This has a large scope, but it would be great to have a "Must Match"-like interface that allows you to select "Override matched records" so that it would replace the data in the record it matches. This would be useful for doing batch-updating for things like Taxon records when doing an initial import, or batch-updating in general.

[maxpatiiuk]

This is a great idea!
Jason and I talked about it two weeks ago, and Jason was going to take a look (if he has any free time)
The code change for this is to suppress the "This value must be unique" error message, in favor of overriding the original record - sounds easy given that it would essentially allow for batch editing!

[grantfitzsimmons]

Similar to #2792

[grantfitzsimmons]

Use cases are visible on the Community Forum:
https://discourse.specifysoftware.org/t/batch-editing-for-specify-7/847/4

[grantfitzsimmons]

CC'd from Slack for future reference

More batch editing requests have come in from users, and I feel we should discuss again the approaches we could take.

@specify/developers Devs, can we talk about how we are going to integrate this into our plan going forward (post-7.9.3)?

We have specific use cases given to us by University of Michigan, University of British Columbia, Delaware Museum of Nature and Science on the forum (linked above).

Eyal in Jerusalem wants to batch update the default taxonomy tree species names so that they use the local names instead, which could also be accommodated if this were to be resolved.

We also have plenty of user requests from committees discussing repatriating coordinates and other data from Symbiota and other sources that could be accommodated if we allowed updating records rather than creating new ones in the database.

[grantfitzsimmons]

Jordi from MCNB wanted to update the type status for a range of Determinations using the WorkBench, but this could not be done without this feature.

https://trello.com/c/AvKKFEid/85-workbench-issue

[grantfitzsimmons]

Scenario

The Fish Collection utilises a YesNo field in the determination table to indicate whether a given determination is on the Label.

Issue

The YesNo field does not operate like the Specify Present/Current field, which the system only allows to be ticked for one determination (as expected). The YesNo Label can be ticked for multiple determinations, however, there should only be one Label determination per object. When new determinations are loaded in bulk via the workbench that are also Label determinations (so the YesNo field is ticked in the load), we end up with multiple determinations marked as the Label determination.

I have tried to use Batch Edit in S6 to modify the tick-box of the existing records that now should be set to False, however, I can’t seem to do that. In fact, using the above record as an example, when I switch from the query view to Batch Edit, not only does the ‘old’ determination disappear, but the determination fields I am trying to edit are greyed out.

So at the moment our only solution seems to be to edit these records manually via the front end, which is a bit of an overhead (as mentioned before we do NOT have access to SQL backend loads). Is there anything I have done incorrectly in the Batch Edit? Or can you think of any other workarounds to make this process a bit more efficient?

Reported By: CSIRO on Asana

[grantfitzsimmons]

I think I know that it's not currently possible, but we were wondering if batch editing can be applied to attachments, particularly collection object attachments.

We're beginning to add specimen images to our database, many with metadata such as photographer, copyright holder, licensing, etc. Some of that metadata can change (or be discovered) over time, so it would be nice to have batch editing on the attachments so that we can update many records at once.

Requested by: Jon Fong at the California Academy of Sciences