Associations seem to be ignored when people are merged:
I was expecting Person C to inherit the association to Person B as part of the merge, but this is not the case. Person C has no association and Person B is now associated with nobody!
It’s an immature new feature in RM9 unsupported by its GEDCOM, drag’n’drop (Association events cannot escape the database in which they are created), general reporting, search…
If the primary person has the association then it is preserved in a merge. I’m not sure if the associations of the person being merged should be inherited by the primary person in the merge. I have reported it to development to decide.
Having decided that two people are in fact the same person, and therefore wanting to merge those two people, would it not be reasonable to expect that all information from the person being merged to be transferred to the primary person? There is no option in RM9 to select which information is transferred in the merge.
If during a merge RM9 is capable of removing the secondary person (the person deleted in the merge) from the association, should it not be capable of replacing that person with the primary person (the person retained in the merge)?
If the association is not maintained, then a manual update of each associated person is required to reflect the association correctly - ie replace the now empty person (was the secondary person in merge) to the primary person in the merge.
I understand completely what you are saying BUT As @TomH said associations is a very new idea to RM 9 and needs a lot of work to bring it up to speed and it will take a while–Renee said development was looking into it, so that’s a good thing
So @klmeagher , since you know there is a problem for now-- did you think abt making the person with the Association the primary person and the other person without the association as secondary???
Just a thought
Working as expected in 9.0.5.0. Thank you