This part of the generated fact sheet does not use the full breadth of the drawn frame.

Please, make sure, that a warning appears, when someone leaves the page, on which she/he creates a new fact sheet, without saving.

open source = yes -> source code available = yes:

• GitHub checkbox appears
• Rename "link to source code" as "Access to source code", Info text: "Where is the source code available (e.g. link, email address)?"; type: not link, but text field.

We are looking for a tool that validates UML diagrams regarding correctness and conformance. This tool should be able to handle the XMI data format w.r.t. to recent standards.

Linked to #60

There should be a tool that translates existing python code to UML diagramms (especially class diagrams). The main issue is that python is not type secure but python 3.5 introduced type hints. These might be used to enhance the performance. Also, I do not know any tool that produces a valid xmi document according to recent standards. XMI is the standard exchange format for UML, though.

• The point model class was accidentally named "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)".
• The options need to be reorganised (according to the discussion results in the openmod wiki).

There are two fields labelled as "tools". The second one seems to be meant as a "other" field and should only appear, when "other" is selected in the drop down menu of the first field. The options of the first field are still dummy data and seem to be supposed to include automatically the list of all models for which a fact sheet is available.

Do we want to allow the selection of more than one tool? See also Issue #55 .

Please, provide larger text fields, especially, when we expect larger texts (for instance "Primary Purpose" and "Primary Outputs", "User behaviour and demand side management", "Comment on geographic (spatial) resolution", "Short description of mathematical model class"). It is not very user-friendly, when the user cannot see her/his text completely at one glance.

Can text fields in general be longer / broader?

• The point "Approach to uncertainty" was accidentally named "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)".
• The "other" option has not got a text field.

Citation reference and References to reports produced using the model

• larger text fields
• plus button for more than one reference, opening an additional text field
• Citation DOI fields next to each field

Citation reference info text
"Publication(s) to be referenced when citing the model; e.g. Doe, John (2014), An electricity market model for Europe, Journal of Modelling Sciences, Vol 10, Issue 80."

Larger text fields also for all other points.

Larger scale usage

• MF: rename to "Model usage"; info text: Who uses the model?
• FF: rename to "Framework" usage; info text: Who uses the framework?

validation
options: peer-reviewed, outcomes cross checked with other models or data, other + text

I would expect a message like "changes / fact sheet successfully saved", after clicking on submit.

Instead of being brought to the next tab, you find yourself on the first tab "general information" after submitting a part.

When does the model fact sheet appear in the list of model fact sheets. I am quite sure that it did not appear directly after submitting the first parts of the model fact sheets.

After submitting the Mathematical properties, the server error 500 occurred. The fact sheet I was working on occurred in the list of model fact sheets (but I cannot open it "server error"). When I tried to reproduce the server error by clicking on the submit button in the Mathematical properties tab, I got back to the General Information tab of the fact sheet creating page telling me "Basic factsheet [ TWO WORDS] with this Name [SHOULD BE LOWERCASE] already exists." In my opinion that messages should tell me more. Are my latest changes lost? How do I go on (e.g. editing the existing fact sheet)?

Suggestions from the openmod wiki:

• If more tools/models are used it could be necessary that one has the possibility to put the model in the top and the the check boxes for each model.
• Appearance: On the right side there is a lot of space and the writing is left in too many lines

There are a few points to improve the coverage section of the model fact sheet:

• the headlines grouping the options of "Modelled energy carriers (primary energy carriers)", "Modelled technologies: components for generation or conversion", "Modelled technologies: components for storage"
• the options of "Modelled technologies: components for transfer, infrastructure or grid" were specified unclear: electricity (transmission; distribution); heat (transmission; distribution); gas (transmission; distribution); Please, include the headings.
• Network coverage / representation (electrical grid): option "net transfer capacities" is missing
• "Changes in efficiency" text field is totally missing
• Market models was meant to be a check box, when yes: two options: fundamental model; stochastic model
• missing info text for "Geographical coverage": "What regions are covered? Please, list the regions covered by the model. Leave blank, if the model and data are not limited to a specific region.
  Example input: USA, Canada, Mexico"
• Time resolution was accidentally called "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)"
• "Additional dimensions (sector)": Please, delete "(sector)" from the heading. the text fields have unnecessary / unclear labels. Please, delete / replace them.

Developers that clone our repository do not clone the underlying django database (as intended). These local copies can not fill pages with text and can not be designed as intended. We should provide example data for our pages.

Explain that "*" on the fact sheets means "mandatory field".

Please, delete "primary outputs".

There are different approaches to handle empty "other texts". Can there be found a consistent way?

• Model class is in the final data sheet divided in three parts (optimisation, simulation, other with a check mark). Please, add the headings "optimisation", "simulation" in the form.
• In the list of the "Mathematical objective" appears "mathematical objective other text". That is not very beautiful.
• In "Approach to uncertainty" appears "Other".

Integration with other models and Integration of other models:

Please, make a check box and a larger text field, appearing when check box is activated.

Model / framework / scenario fact sheet:
Please, make separated text fields for author name, institution, working field, active time period and a plus button for additional authors.

If a user has entered some data, he might accidentally leave the site and loose all data. The user should be warned if he leaves the site while data is pending.

Please, write info texts for the complete section.

When ticking "other" another "other check box" is opened. That should be a text field.

The current input scheme assumes that each a table draws the data directly from the table. The following is currently not possible:

Suppose the following input data: "Marc is knitting."

This "Marc" could not be linked to the id 1 with the current interface.
Solution:
Add a 'link to prim. key where name = "Marc"' option to the mapping page of data-edit

Form:

• In the form the section "results" is accidentally named "references".
• In the form in section Assumptions the "Potential energy saving" is implemented twice. Please, use plural in the first: "Potential energy savingS". The second one should be labelled with "emission reductions".
• I cannot find the question " Name of the scenario" in the form. Please, consider that in connection to #59.

Sheet:

• "Name of the study" should not be part of Assumptions. The same is true for "Name of the Scenario", but under consideration of #59.
• The number of labels in the Assumption section include accidentally the word "kind".

On the fact sheet creating page only links with http:// in the beginning are accepted. That might annoy the users. Please, change that or warn users in the info text.

Currently, the section "Basic Information" contains informations regarding the study that contains the scenario. Studies can contain several scenarios.

Hence, we should remove the fields in basic information and put them into a seperate fact sheet.
On the form's "General Information" tab users can select from existing studies or select to enter a new one. If they do so, after submitting the form they are redirected to a new form for the new study.

The actual fact sheet should look like it does now, but fetch the "General Information" from the new study table.

@EvaWie: Are there other fields that should be part of the study?

Ticking the "other option" in a former saved fact sheet, Mathematical objective other text says "false".

The fact sheet cannot be saved or the following error occurs even when the "other option" is not tick anymore.
"Mathematical objective other text: This field is required."

Clicking on the blue info text question mark does not show you the expected information, but brings you to the top of the page. I personally dislike that.

• The point "Supported model types" was accidentally named "Mathematical model".
• The selection should be options and not a drop-down menu.
• Should this selection be in general information?
• In the ready fact sheets appears suddenly "Support / Community / Forum" instead.

model integration: model file format: not mandatory
software: model software: mandatory

There are several issues with "potential energy savings" etc in the scenario fact sheets :

• Input fields should hide if "not estimated" is selected
• If values other than "not estimated" are selected, both integer fields become necessary

• The logo upload does not work. Please, specify in the info text, what kind of pictures can be uploaded.

• Model / Framework / scenario fact sheet; general information: Rename "Institution(s)" as "Partner(s)"; info text: "Which organisations develop(ed) the model / framework / scenario?"
• Model; model integration; "Input/output data file format": Please, separate Input and Output into two drop-down menus. Veto? They should not be mandatory.
• (Move the "Primary Outputs" to the integration section, right before the "Output data file format".)
  Sorry, we changed our mind. Please, do not move it.
• Model fact sheet: documentation quality stays a mandatory field, because it is a drop-down menu. The option "not available" needs to be added. Can the field be next to link to documentation.
• "Additional software" will no longer be a mandatory field. Please, remember to delete the "*".
• option to say when approximately it may become open source under the item 'planned to open up in the future' in the openness section (please, make a text field) Sorry, we changed our mind: Please, put it into mathematical properties.
• There needs be added a check box: "Multi-regional model" in the coverage section . Info text: "Allows the model multi-regional modelling?"
• Geographic (spatial) resolution info text: "What is the typical geographic resolution, the model works with?"

• The point "Mathematical objective" was accidentally named "Network coverage / representation (electrical grid)".
• Ticking the "other" option opens another check box. Funny bug.

At different points in the sections "Coverage" and "Mathematical properties" the submitted fact sheet show "True" or an array of the word "True" instead of a check mark or a list of the selected options.

The label "framework yes text" should not appear in the fact sheet. If there is a text it should stand for itself (or give it a more beautiful name like name of the underlying framework). If there is no text, this line should not be part of the fact sheet.

The points "planned to open up in the future" and "costs" appear in the ready fact sheet of open source models, but can not be filled out in the form.

The "license other text" should not appear in the final fact sheet or it should be renamed. When choosing a licence from the list after choosing the "other option" and entering a name in the other field first, in the form the "other option" and the entered name disappear, but in the final fact sheet the name or the standard text "not jet decided" is displayed nevertheless and the selection is ignored (model and framework fact sheet).

As above the label "external optimizer yes text" should not appear.

Do we prefer a check box with yes-text for "Additional software"? Preventing people to write none / no etc. The field should not be mandatory (please, change that also in the framework fact sheet).

Add watch function, so that the watcher of a certain fact sheets gets a notification mail, when the fact sheet has been changed. This function is meant to make the authors of a fact sheet / the developers of models or frameworks or scenarios aware of changes in "their" fact sheet.

• the headlines grouping the options of "Modelled energy carriers (primary energy carriers)", "Modelled technologies: components for generation or conversion", "Modelled technologies: components for storage" are missing
• the options of "Modelled technologies: components for transfer, infrastructure or grid" were specified unclear: electricity (transmission; distribution); heat (transmission; distribution); gas (transmission; distribution): Please delete the words "Transfer electricity / gas /heat";
  The headings should not have a check box.

We need a form for input of new data on our platform. This form should adapt to the edited table and submit data to the "untested" database.

Currently it is not visible which fields belong to primary keys. Additionally, all fields are currently mandatory. This should only be true for primary keys.

We need a user management for our platform. For starters each user
should be able to login and manage a profile that consists of his
name, mail-address (per default hidden) and his affiliation. Maybe we
will extend this profiles later.

Django seems to come with a package for user management:
django.contrib.auth.forms

Some things went wrong here. The headings are missing and heat appears three times in the list.

The list was meant to look like this:
renewables (PV, wind, hydro, biomass, biogas, solar thermal, others); conventional generation (gas, coal, oil, liquid fuels, nuclear); CHP; networks (electricity, gas, heat); storages (battery, kinetic, CAES, PHS, chemical)

Fields are class attributes of the corresponding model. Changes on one instance will be done on all. Find another way to change help texts on instances Energyframework.

The text fields for the link to the documentations should not be mandatory - taking the case, where the documentation is not online available, into account. Please, make in the info text clear, that a link is expected.

The quality rating was meant to be located next to link and not underneath.

Each Project should feature a list of external packages

There are too many mandatory fields. That hinders users, who have to continue later, to save fact sheets, that are only partly filled out in parts.
Questions with options (and drop down menus?) should no longer be mandatory. Please, provide a default selection.

Design / Layout: Please, make sure that the user easily sees, which check box belongs to which text.

Please, extent the list of open source licences:
for instance: MIT Licence, Apache Licence, GNU GPL Licence

The "other" text field should disappear when a licence for the list is chosen.