Code Climate has analyzed commit cba01b2 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (50% is the threshold).

This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 82.4% (0.0% change).

View more on Code Climate.

The box is currently hidden for users except Service Team and CMS Team, as the contact feature itself is hidden.

• Should archived contacts be shown in the related contacts box? IMO we should at least note if they are archived, or hide them completely

I've added "(⚠ Archived)" to the archived contacts.

• Issue [2024-11-07] Remove E-mail, phone number and website from POI #3086 mentions a primary contact that we will deliver in the api. Do you think it makes sense to highlight the primary contact also in the related contacts box?
• Should the box be positioned closely to the existing contact details box or should we leave that up to [2024-11-07] Remove E-mail, phone number and website from POI #3086?

@osmers
What do you think?

Sorry, I did not see the questions before :)

I think it makes sense to highlight the primary contact - maybe naming it something like general contact information?

And in my understanding the box showing related contacts should substitute the existing contact details box - if substituting is not possible then place it just below or above the existing box so that once we delete the existing box, it will basically be in the same position :)

@david-venhoff @osmers
Thank you for idea and replies 😸

The box of related contacts is moved up to directly under the contact data box, which we can remove after or during #3086

The primary contact is shown as "General contact information". It appears instead of "title + name" display.

This PR is currently being adjusted for the changes lately introduced.

@osmers

Currently the related contacts are shown like this:

Archived contacts are marked as suggested before, "General contact information" for primary contacts (as discussed already), and <point of contact for (title)> (+ name if name is given) for all other contacts. I know this schema is different from what introduced in #3142 (Contact for [NAME_OF_LOCATION] with [ATTRIBUTE]: [ATTRIBUTE]). [NAME_OF_LOCATION] is omitted because it is on the POI form and therefore it's clear about which POI it is. E-mail, phone number or website will not be shown here, for title (point of contact for) and name (if given) are easier to understand what contact it is (in my opinion).

Is this way Okay for service team?

<point of contact for (title)> (+ name if name is given) for all other contacts. I know this schema is different from what introduced in #3142 (Contact for [NAME_OF_LOCATION] with [ATTRIBUTE]: [ATTRIBUTE]). [NAME_OF_LOCATION] is omitted because it is on the POI form and therefore it's clear about which POI it is. E-mail, phone number or website will not be shown here, for title (point of contact for) and name (if given) are easier to understand what contact it is (in my opinion).

Is this way Okay for service team?

In theory (not showing the POI) yes, but what happens when no name is provided and only a title (which might be double)? Do we then add the phone, email or webseite? Not sure if this will happen often, it's probably an edge case, but who knows what the municipalities will come up with.

In theory (not showing the POI) yes, but what happens when no name is provided and only a title (which might be double)? Do we then add the phone, email or webseite? Not sure if this will happen often, it's probably an edge case, but who knows what the municipalities will come up with.

@osmers
In the current implementation only the title will be shown. I don't think we get so much of doubles when the list is "per POI". If more than one contact with the same title are needed but no individual name should be given, users will name them like "Ansprechpartner (Nachname A-K)", "Ansprechpartner (Nachname K-P) etc for their own understandability. And a problem with adding E-mail etc. is that the display name will be too long for such a small box 🤔

@osmers
Did you mean "OK with the current implementation" with 👍 or is it still on a discussion/thinking?

Sorry @MizukiTemma
Yeah, I meant I'm ok with it bcs I find it hard to think of all the possible "problems" :D
So we'll do it this way and then see what kind of feedback we get.

@david-venhoff

The only thing missing I think is that the new contact box should replace the existing contact details box

It'll be done as a part of #3086