Michael Hannah 0 Report post Posted November 5, 2005 I first reported these in TMG 6.04 but since then there are THREE new updates to fix bugs (THANKS, Bob, we all appreciate the hard work to produce these fixes!). However, my bugs with problems with Citation Memos and Exhibit text (two different bugs?) in the Individual Narrative report are still manifest in Version 6.07. I am posting this to both the Forum and the TMGL mailing list. As a comment to a recent posting, I am very pleased with the stability and status of v6.07, and these bugs are very obscure. As an aid to finding and fixing such obscure bugs, I have identified small changes that can be made to the standard TMG SAMPLE project that will reproduce these bugs. Bug one. Under some cases two citations are printed as Ibid without printing the Citation Memos even though the Citation Memos are specified to print and (only) the Citation Memos differ between the two citations. In some cases when "Combine consecutive footnotes/endnotes" on the Source tab for the Report Options is selected, the entire Full Footnote with memo is duplicated inside the same combinded citation. Bug two. When an Exhibit of internal text exists for an event tag, and event exhibits are selected to print as endnotes, and "Combine consecutive footnotes/endnotes" on the Source tab for the Report Options is selected, either the rest of the Narrative from that point is printed as part of the footnote/endnote for the event Exhibit text, or construction of the entire Report file aborts. Even if the file is produced, Word will abort with mouseover the citation. In some cases the Exhibit (and the event citation) prints with the footnote for the event memo even though both are specified to be endnotes (this last may be by design, although I believe a Sources option should not change where the Exhibit has been specified to print). ============== To reproduce these bugs starting with the TMG SAMPLE project: Copy SAMPLE project to separate folder so you can safely make changes. Open project to the default person: Annie Eliza Alexander. Open the Master Source List and open source #1 "Alexander/Keebler Bible" and select the Output Form tag, noting that both Full and Short Footnote are overwritten already. Add "<.><.>" (without the quotes) after [M1] in the Full and before the final period in the Short footnote. Double click on the primary Name tag and add a citation detail to source #1 of "Citation detail" and a citation memo of "Name memo". Double click on Father tag and add the same citation detail to source #1 of "Citation detail" but a citation memo of "Father memo". Double click on Mother tag and add the same citation detail to source #1 of "Citation detail" and a citation memo of "Mother memo". Double click on the primary Birth tag and add the same citation detail to source #1 of "Citation detail" and a citation memo of "Birth memo". Double click on the primary Marriage tag and add an internal text exhibit to this event tag with text of "Marriage exhibit text" Add a new default Associatn tag, but change the sentence for Principal to add "" (without the quotes) after "associated", give it a date of 1880. Add person #1 and person #2 as witnesses. Add a citation of source #6 with citation detail of "census detail" and citation memo of "census memo" and put surety of 2 for both 1&2. Add an internal text exhibit to this event tag with text of "Census exhibit text". Add a new default Anecdote tag, with memo "Anecdote memo", no citation, date of 1890, and add an internal text exhibit to this event tag with text of "Anecdote exhibit text" Select report for Individual Narrative. Leave Subject set to this one person. Set Print to: a File of type RTF, and choose a file name. For Options, leave all as default, except: Memos not included in the sentence are Footnotes selecting name, relationship or witnessed. Exhibits are endnotes selecting internal, external, copy, reference, center, with caption, and event, with primary image. Publication Tools Bibliography selected but not Table of Contents. For source options, always have the following options set for all the variations tried below: do not supress CD, do not show surety, do not show excluded citations, include Name source, include Relationship sources. Now try all the variations on the source options remaining: Bug-Endnotes, but not unique, do not disable ibid, do not combine: Citation memo for Name and Birth print, but Mother and Father are Ibid with citation detail but no memo (I believe the differing memos should either print or prevent Ibid) Exhibits are separate endnotes embedded with the citations Good-Endnotes, but not unique, disable ibid, do not combine: All memos print Exhibits are separate endnotes embedded with the citations Good-Endnotes, unique, disable ibid, do not combine: All memos print Exhibits are endnotes, separate and following the citations Good-Endnotes, unique, do not disable ibid, do not combine: All memos print, and Mother and Father are not ibid, (but?) are Full (I assume that unique recognizes the differing memos and prevents ibid, but it also prevents short footnote?) Exhibits are endnotes, separate and following the citations Bug-Endnotes, but not unique, combine: All memos print in the combined endnote citation and the Source Supplement M1 memo prints only once in this citation The Associatn exhibit text is combined with the census citation endnote but should? be printing as an endnote The rest of the Narration paragraph appears in this Endnote following the text "[:MEMO] with the subsequent endnotes embedded in this one endnote. The "mouseover" of the superscript in the Narrative text shows that the citation and all the remaining Narrative text is considered this endnote [when the file is output to "Word for Windows 2000 or later" this mouseover produces a fatal error in Word] [alternative test: remove the Associatn exhibit. The citation to the marriage is appended to the Marriage tag memo as part of its footnote as is its Exhibit text, where both should? be endnotes. This may be by design and my misunderstanding. Remaining exhibit is separate endnote embedded with the citations] Bug-Endnotes, unique, combine: Conversion error # 13: Source file discrepancy. A file is created but is Zero length [alternative test: remove the Associatn exhibit. Source #1 Supplement M1 memo prints three times!! in its combined citation. The citation to the marriage is appended to the Marriage tag memo as part of its footnote as is its Exhibit text, where both should? be endnotes. This may be by design and my misunderstanding. Remaining exhibit is separate endnote embedded with the citations] Bug-Footnotes, do not disable ibid, do not combine: Citation memo for Name and Birth print, but Mother and Father are Ibid with citation detail but no memo (I believe the differing memos should either print or prevent ibid) The exhibits print after the Bibliography, but have no separating Endnotes title heading, which I believe should exist Bug-Footnotes, disable ibid, do not combine: All memos print The exhibits print after the Bibliography,but have no separating Endnotes title heading, which I believe should exist Bug-Footnotes, combine: All memos print in the combined footnote citation and the Source Supplement M1 memo prints only once in this citation The Associatn exhibit text is combined with the census citation footnote but should? be printing as an endnote The rest of the Narration paragraph appears in the Endnote following the text "[:MEMO] with the subsequent endnotes embedded in this one endnote. The "mouseover" of the superscript in the Narrative text shows that the citation and all the remaining Narrative text is considered this endnote [when the file is output to "Word for Windows 2000 or later" this mouseover produces a fatal error in Word] [alternative test: remove the Associatn exhibit. The Exhibit text prints as part of the Marriage citation footnote, where it should? be an endnote. The remaining exhibit prints after the Bibliography, but has no separating Endnotes title heading, which I believe should exist] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Byram 0 Report post Posted December 12, 2005 Michael, You made a critical omission when you set up your test. When you set up source #1, you need to tick the ibid selection 'ON - Requires same source and [CD]' on the Output form tab. There is a bug and a design omission. The bug is combining source endnotes/footnotes (with combine selected) with exhibit output to endnotes. This causes a recursion issue where report output is prematurely terminated and an endnote/footnote contains citations to itself. Issues like whether the exhibits endnote section should have a title when standing alone is a design issue, not a bug. Jim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Moran 0 Report post Posted December 12, 2005 Michael- That's way too much for my attention span, but in experimenting with Journal Reports exported in *.RTF format, it appeared that footnote erors in the Sample project could be triggered by a change in citation Style. That is, citations of a style that contained italics - including the Bible one -could trigger errors in OpenOffice.org Writer footnote fonts, while non-italicized text in citations caused no obvious errors. When the same Sample Journal file was opened in MSWord from from *.RTF report export, it appeared that all footnotes might be superscripted. I assumed this to be an error. Do you also see superscripted footnote numbers in Word? John Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Hannah 0 Report post Posted December 13, 2005 Michael, You made a critical omission when you set up your test. When you set up source #1, you need to tick the ibid selection 'ON - Requires same source and [CD]' on the Output form tab. There is a bug and a design omission. The bug is combining source endnotes/footnotes (with combine selected) with exhibit output to endnotes. This causes a recursion issue where report output is prematurely terminated and an endnote/footnote contains citations to itself. Issues like whether the exhibits endnote section should have a title when standing alone is a design issue, not a bug. Jim Jim, Thaks very much for checking this. I had forgotton about that ibid selection being part of the source itself. I had fallen into the trap that the report defined all of the aspects of ibid. Obviously being able to make that selection per source is valuable. I will need to put that reminder in big bold text in my personal document on constructing reports. As for the actual bug found, thanks for verifying that it is not something wrong with just me and my dataset. It is such an obscure bug that (as my tests showed) I can choose some settings as a workaround that will give me close to the report I want. And I agree that the design issue is just that, a design choice. Again, as long as I know that it is there by design, I can easily cut and paste the Word report and get what I prefer. And, once more, you have been extremely helpful to the TMG users. Thanks. Michael Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Hannah 0 Report post Posted December 13, 2005 Michael-That's way too much for my attention span, but in experimenting with Journal Reports exported in *.RTF format, it appeared that footnote erors in the Sample project could be triggered by a change in citation Style. That is, citations of a style that contained italics - including the Bible one -could trigger errors in OpenOffice.org Writer footnote fonts, while non-italicized text in citations caused no obvious errors. When the same Sample Journal file was opened in MSWord from from *.RTF report export, it appeared that all footnotes might be superscripted. I assumed this to be an error. Do you also see superscripted footnote numbers in Word? John John, Thanks for looking in to this obscure situation. As Jim has noted, there is a small and obscure bug, but I can choose options that work around it. Yes, I do see superscripted footnote numbers in Word. I have not experimented with whether having italics makes a difference. Do you mean using the [iTAL:][:ITAL] code in TMG in the citation or source data might make a difference? I will have to experiment with this when I am off for the holidays. Michael Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Moran 0 Report post Posted December 13, 2005 John,Thanks for looking in to this obscure situation. As Jim has noted, there is a small and obscure bug, but I can choose options that work around it. Yes, I do see superscripted footnote numbers in Word. I have not experimented with whether having italics makes a difference. Do you mean using the [iTAL:][:ITAL] code in TMG in the citation or source data might make a difference? I will have to experiment with this when I am off for the holidays. Michael <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only Journal Report tests I have ever made in TMG were with Projects based on the Sample "as is" as far as Sources, Citations, and Memo coding goes. I occasionally experiment with language character sets other than English/Latin code page 1252 in memo fields or name fields, but I don't think that would have any effect here. John Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Moran 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2005 Michael-That's way too much for my attention span, but in experimenting with Journal Reports exported in *.RTF format, it appeared that footnote erors in the Sample project could be triggered by a change in citation Style. That is, citations of a style that contained italics - including the Bible one -could trigger errors in OpenOffice.org Writer footnote fonts, while non-italicized text in citations caused no obvious errors. When the same Sample Journal file was opened in MSWord from from *.RTF report export, it appeared that all footnotes might be superscripted. I assumed this to be an error. Do you also see superscripted footnote numbers in Word? John <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why use RTF for TMG Report generation? The current RTF specification has more than enough bells and whistles for most reports from a typical genealogy program, and cannot be retracted, unless MS claims some sort of patent infringement. It's out there. It is understandable to the typical TMG user. The major Word Processor applications support it. Whether they support it correctly and fully is another matter. Rich Text Format, although proprietary to Microsoft, is "open" in the sense that the the current specification is freely downloadable and the file structure is not compressed. This means that any experienced user of TMG can review exported Report files as TXT and discover whether unexpected behavior of the reports, when opened in MSWord or other similar applications, is a bug or a feature. File size is not much of an issue, as far as storage space goes these days. Decryption and decompression is not an issue. This is not true of Report exports in MS *.doc or most other proprietary formats. TMG developers are no doubt currently at work on creating report exports in some form of open document format, perhaps XML based. If the chosen format is uncompressed and, life could be simpler for TMG users. John M. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Hannah 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2005 Why use RTF for TMG Report generation? [because...] ... For this thread I tried both RTF and Word output just to test more than one output to see if that was the cause of this small bug. However, I agree with you on your comments supporting using RTF. I choose to output my final reports in RTF as I then import them to FrameMaker for final formatting, which is the software I much prefer as a full-featured and robust document creation tool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites