-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
taxon: include counts of immediate children #118
Comments
There's a practical consideration here that limits how much information we can show without delaying update of the display to go fetch more in additional API calls. So if we stick to just what can be obtained from the initial call to show Arachnida, we have: i.e. we know it has a subclass, and we know it has some orders, but we don't know the superorders within that subclass, nor the orders within those superclasses, not without additional API calls to enumerate their children, with a cost of 1s delay per API call due to rate-limiting, for a total added cost of 3 more seconds to enumerate how many orders, total. I don't think we want to delay the initial display to get all of that info. And this is just a simple case where the children we'd need to enumerate aren't too numerous. There are some much worse cases where the immediate children are numerous, and there are intermediate levels that would, in turn, need to be fetched to enumerate all of the grandchildren ... it could take minutes to count them all up at a rate of one per second. So I don't think we can reasonably implement my idea "is a class with 1 subclass, 2 superorders, and 17 orders", which looks easy, but only works here because there aren't many children to enumerate down to the target "floor" rank for enumeration. |
New idea, using only what's in the In addition to this, it has come to my attention that we say nothing about extant vs extinct children, and probably should! I'll file a separate issue about this. Indeed, there seems to be a problem sometimes in the iNat data that the About page will describe a taxon as extinct (e.g. suborder Protocoleoptera) and indeed if you browse down to the grandchildren, you can see that, but the levels of children between are not, themselves, marked extinct. Therefore, it would not be practical right now to have the taxon display list that Order Coleoptera has immediate children of 4 extant suborders, 1 extinct suborder, and 1 extinct genus until the iNat data is revised to mark that suborder |
In |
This is an idea raised by Jared (blazeclaw) on iNat Discord and refined a bit as we talked about it on #bot-stuff:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: