Eshalon

Lost items on sets with multple quantity

Recommended Posts

When adding a set more then once (lets since i own 7241 twice) 

and marking a part of that set as lost item in more then one of those sets (again lets say i miss the head 3626bpb0196 twice - each one of each set i own)

then i can not enter this circumstances because i am getting an error that marking the part over its maximum quantity per set is not allowed (means i can only add the head once as a lost item)

 

Even if the system would let me add the same part as missing it would be nice to mark the item as missing in which of the sets i own. 

 

I am using Chrome (current version) as browser but i guess it is no browser issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm this issue. Also applies to lost Spare Parts from multiple copies of the same set. I know about setting this from the Edit Set page where you can flag that ALL spares are missing, but in this scenario we're talking about some of the same spares missing from multiple copies of the same set. And I think flagging a set for ALL spares missing would do that for every copy of the set owned?

Would also be nice to have a note field in lost parts so we can annotate further details regarding the part / loss circumstances.

In Rebrickable v2, lost Spare Parts were listed separately from Standard Parts. I'd love to see a similar breakdown in v3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is starting to cause some tricky inconsistencies in my inventory, any word on when this might be fixed? I've got a load of job lot logging to do but it'd cause more problems down the line if I try to bodge it at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will always be hard to manage this as long as the site manages multiple copies of the same set the way it does. And since this is a brand new site, it's probably not in the plans to change that. On Rebrickable, you don't have two entries for two copies of a set, you have one entry with a quantity of 2 (or more). That makes it very hard to treat these differently.

Example: I have 6 copies of a set:
-One includes the spares and is built.
-One includes the spares and is not built.
-One doesn't include the spares and is built.
-One doesn't include the spares and is not built.
-One doesn't include the spares and is not built but missing 2 parts.
-One includes the spares and is not built but missing 3 other parts and one of the two from the previous set.

This is pretty extreme but it is a plausible case and would be easy to manage it we saw 6 separate instance of the set instead of one instance with "x6". but that doesn't seem to be how the database is built at all. Maybe if each copy with a different state is in a different list, this could be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, it was perfectly possible on the old site. All we needed to do was add a set a few times, and then if pieces were missing, find the piece in the list on the Set page and click the Lost Part link. Change the quantity if required, it was all fine.

 

In your example, which is indeed plausible, the Lost Parts would show 3 of each of the mentioned parts missing. From the perspective of finding out if you can build it, it's fine. The spares... I don't know how to deal with those, but they're unrelated to this issue. On the previous site I'd personally always add the spares as lost parts.

 

Consider another example, 3 copies of a set A (assume only one part is required to build)

- one missing part X and Y

- one missing part Y

- one missing part Z.

 

The lost parts total will show 1 missing X, 2 missing Y and 1 missing Z. The build total can still go to 100%. It doesn't matter that Y is missing double the amount required for the set, because it exists in the third copy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's still an inventory with incomplete information to me. I think it should ideally be possible to manage each copy of each set. It's not a big problem for me because there are very few sets I have more than one copy of but for people who do, this must be a big headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, as someone who regularly buys job lots, I see certain sets coming in time and time again. As soon as two of those sets are both missing the same piece, bosh, my inventory is incorrect and impossible to fix.

 

Interestingly, my data that was imported from v2 retains the missing piece quantities that are higher than those of a single set, I just cannot maintain the correctness for newly acquired sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2017 at 6:49 AM, Eshalon said:

When adding a set more then once (lets since i own 7241 twice) 

and marking a part of that set as lost item in more then one of those sets (again lets say i miss the head 3626bpb0196 twice - each one of each set i own)

then i can not enter this circumstances because i am getting an error that marking the part over its maximum quantity per set is not allowed (means i can only add the head once as a lost item)

Fixed the validation

On 3/21/2017 at 6:10 AM, Vokhev said:

I think it will always be hard to manage this as long as the site manages multiple copies of the same set the way it does. And since this is a brand new site, it's probably not in the plans to change that. On Rebrickable, you don't have two entries for two copies of a set, you have one entry with a quantity of 2 (or more). That makes it very hard to treat these differently.

Example: I have 6 copies of a set:
-One includes the spares and is built.
-One includes the spares and is not built.
-One doesn't include the spares and is built.
-One doesn't include the spares and is not built.
-One doesn't include the spares and is not built but missing 2 parts.
-One includes the spares and is not built but missing 3 other parts and one of the two from the previous set.

This is pretty extreme but it is a plausible case and would be easy to manage it we saw 6 separate instance of the set instead of one instance with "x6". but that doesn't seem to be how the database is built at all. Maybe if each copy with a different state is in a different list, this could be done?

Correct. The only way to separate them is to put them in different lists.

On 3/24/2017 at 0:57 AM, Bobflip said:

Interestingly, my data that was imported from v2 retains the missing piece quantities that are higher than those of a single set, I just cannot maintain the correctness for newly acquired sets.

v2 stored sets in a similar way but did not have any validation on the quantities so let you do whatever you wanted. If you got it wrong, the Build calculations would be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites