Support nested -to-many relationships in WorkBench

[grantfitzsimmons]

The Determination Citation table does not display in the WB mapper even when it is not hidden in the schema.

https://suriname-edge.test.specifysystems.org/specify/workbench-plan/3/

user: spadmin
database: suriname
user agent: Windows 10 and Chrome
ver: edge

[maxpatiiuk]

This is because workbench does not support nested -to-many relationships (Collection Object -> Determination is a -to-many and Determination -> Determination Citation is a -to-many)

Until this is fixed, your best bet is to change the base table (if Determination is the base table, you can upload both to Determination Citation and Collection Object)

[grantfitzsimmons]

@benanhalt Is there any way to make this happen for Suriname, specifically for the Determination Citation table? They need to upload to this table while doing their data imports.

If we cannot implement a fix for this, I'm afraid we will need to help them import this data manually.

[maxpatiiuk]

@grantfitzsimmons Can you change the base table?
Or do two uploads?

[grantfitzsimmons]

It needs to be CO. If we change the base table, it will become much more complex. I can try to explain this behavior but if this can be resolved it should be.

[grantfitzsimmons]

@benanhalt Is this something we can make happen so that Suriname can upload their data without adding many additional steps?

[benanhalt]

It might be possible for tables that are configured to always upload. I.e. it doesn't try to match existing records. The reason it isn't allowed now is that trying to match existing records with chained -to-main relationships gets really complicated. For example imagine trying to match a collection object based on what determinations it has if the determiners' addresses are going to be relevant to the match.

[grantfitzsimmons]

What are the consequences for a table like Determination Citation? It doesn't need to be match an existing record. Is this something we could enable in preferences with an explanation?

[grantfitzsimmons]

@benanhalt @maxpatiiuk Can you enable this behavior in Specify 7.8?