CiviCRM Community Forums (archive)

Hi,

Is the "Medium" drop down in CiviCase still fixed? I.e. (without attacking the code or database), an element with fixed contents and a required form elements that cannot be turned off?

It is pretty simple to do by adding a couple of lines of jQuery to set default values and hide elements http://civicrm.org/blogs/dave-greenberg/now-its-easier-add-custom-behaviors-templates. I wouldn't call this 'attacking' since it is quite easy to do and mantain and you aren't causing any long term damage / doing anything that will be hard to undo in the future.

Is there any way to alter the default CiviCase form (I would expect to see Case Type at the top, for instance) without code tweaking? Can the page be overridden with a template, for example?

Yes - see above.  Similar to adding the extra file that could include jQuery, you can override the file in the custom templates directory.  This PDF gives a good introduction to that http://sf2012.civicrm.org/sites/default/files/slides/Contribution%20Forms%20Wild.pdf.  It is for contribution forms, not the case form, but the same principle applies.

Also, I agree with you that I would expect to see case at the top.  I'd also like Medium to be renamed source.  That would make the CiviCase interface look more like other component interfaces (if you have seen source somewhere else, you'll recognise it again when you come to civicase, etc.).  Admittedly, that is only two people so far, but you know...

If you are considering making this modifications, you should also consider suggesting them as modifications to core since if they are accepted, when you come to upgrade you won't need to reapply these modifications + other will benefit as well.

Oh and it would make more sense to have "Subject" above "Details", wouldn't it? Never mind, I'm sure it's like that for a reason 

I'm sure it's like that for a reason 

But is a good reason?!  I would definitely explore patching core to make it more inline with other interface elements.  There are a few key people who'd have an opinion on that. Seeings as you are doing it anyway, if you want to submit a patch we can discuss

Medium is short for "Encounter Medium". I don't see a problem with calling it "Source" for consistency. It's main use I believe is part of the audit trail concept where it's important to know exactly where a piece of information came from.

For form layout originally the plan was for something where you could compose compound activities out of atomic building blocks, i.e. activities (such as open case) are actually composed of smaller entities which are activities themselves. But time/budget/usability/etc...

Anyway, given that everybody wants something different, I agree with the approach in this thread to try to pick common desires as the core layout, and then customize as Michael has described. I have seen several calls for moving the details field down near the bottom, and have done this customization myself more than once.

For case type, I've seen two requests (and just recently done a customization) for the opposite of what you're describing, moving case type out of open case so that the case type isn't chosen until later in the life of the case. This would be common for any org that has front-line intake where all they do is take down some details, and then later a higher level staffer has a meeting/phone call with the client where the case type (a.k.a. service package to be provided) is determined.

Having said that, I don't see a problem with allowing choosing case type right at the menu level, but I'm not sure I follow the tab suggestion. I think I'd need to see a sample or have a specific example described in order to comment further. In any case, (pun intended) the menu params are theoretically a customization you might be able to do with the buildForm hook - just create some navigation menu entries with the url param added, and then set the default value for the field in buildForm based on the url param (there's a civi utility function for extracting url params if it's not already in the $form somewhere, can't recall it off the top of my head).

Hey FadeOUT,

You might also be interested in this post I made about a 'fundraising pipeline': http://forum.civicrm.org/index.php/topic,25014.0/topicseen.html

I'd love to get some best practice nailed down around this workflow since I think it is obviousl pretty common amongst a fairly large proportion of non profits.

To me that looks like an improvement.

Ah, "Option Groups"..! Thanks..!