Stream: IG creation
Topic: Resource order in template-based Table of Contents
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 15:21):
Is there any way to drive the resource order in the TOC? For example, when I generate a sample IG w/ SUSHI, the TOC ends up like this:
pasted image
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 15:23):
This is the order I get no matter what order I list the resources in the IG JSON (I tried alternate orders). It looks like it lists profiles, then extensions, then value sets, then code systems, then examples. Without the grouping in the TOC, however, it's a little confusing.
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 15:24):
I also experimented with creating my own groupings, but those still don't get surfaced in the TOC -- so it doesn't seem to add much value (which is, in fact, what the sample IG suggests -- that creating your own groupings is only necessary for very special cases).
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 15:28):
Thinking on it more, I guess this is less a request to drive order of the TOC, but more a request to somehow indicate the grouping context in the TOC as an organizational construct. I think that would be the best solution.
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 10 2020 at 15:52):
TOC wouldn't expose the groupings because there are no pages for the groupings. The TOC should be ordered in the same order things appear in the artifacts list - and the artifacts list should retain the relative order of artifacts as you specify them in the ig.json - though it will re-order based on groupings (unless you manually declare those too).
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 10 2020 at 15:52):
If it's not behaving that way, holler and provide an example of where it's not working correctly
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 16:10):
I think it is working that way -- so if that's by design, then there's nothing wrong really. It's just that we've received comments that the ordering of the TOC is confusing. Without a clear delineation of where one grouping starts and another ends, it's less clear how the content is organized. For example, take a look at the SDC TOC, trying to wear your first-time-viewer (not SDC expert) glasses. It's pretty confusing, right? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to understand and navigate if you saw the groupings like on the SDC Artifacts page?
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 16:12):
It's ok if the grouping headers aren't linked -- but I guess if you wanted to link them, you could link them to the appropriate anchors on the artifacts page.
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 16:12):
Anyway, not a bug report. Just a suggestion for enhancement. ;-)
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 10 2020 at 16:17):
Yeah, not sure how to make things better. The TOC has no knowledge other than what pages exist. And the ordering is driven by the organization in the artifacts page
Jose Costa Teixeira (Feb 10 2020 at 16:17):
can we add the grouping when we build the TOC?
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 10 2020 at 16:47):
ToC is just a list of pages. Groups don't come into play
Grahame Grieve (Feb 10 2020 at 19:59):
I certainly thought that they did
Grahame Grieve (Feb 10 2020 at 19:59):
what else would they be for?
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 10 2020 at 20:02):
Groups come into play in the artifacts overview/summary page. The TOC reflects pages - artifact and otherwise. Essentially everything that gets assigned a section number.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 10 2020 at 20:04):
maybe it's just me, but I expected that groups would affect section numbers
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 10 2020 at 20:08):
Right now we don't make section numbers deeper due to groupings. Section numbers are driven solely by the hierarchy of pages. All artifacts are direct children of the 'artifacts' summary page. We could create sub-pages for each of the groupings, but it's not clear there's a point. It just means more pages to jump around through when you're trying to get a sense of all of the artifacts. (Some IGs might well have 10+ groups)
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 20:18):
I don't think it's that uncommon for IGs to want separate index pages for separate types of resources. We certainly did that w/ some of our own IGs -- and looking at US Core, it separated out Profiles and Extensions, Search Parameters and Operations, Terminology, and Capability Statements each into their own pages.
Chris Moesel (Feb 10 2020 at 20:35):
I can see where that would be annoying with 10+ groups though. It really depends on your granularity of groups.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
