Existing Sort Date Doesn't Change When the Date Changes

RM and Windows 10.

If the existing sort date for a fact has a -suffix, the sort date doesn’t change automatically if the date for the fact is changed. I have to copy the new date to be the new sort date. The sort date does change automatically if the existing sort date does does not have a -suffix.

I don’t know if this is by design or if it’s a bug. If it’s by design, I can’t quite decide if I like the behavior or not. I can see both advantages and disadvantages. The behavior is definitely different than RM7 where the sort date always changes automatically when the date is changed.

I ran across this situation while I was working on entering sources to try to find a workflow for sources that I can use with RM8. I was entering a death certificate as a source. When I have a death certificate, I create a Death Record fact. I then use the death certificate as a citation for the Death fact, for the Death Record fact, and for several other facts. I give the Death fact a sort date such as 24 Aug 1940-1 and I give the Death Record fact a sort date such as 24 Aug 1940-2. I can choose to print the Death Record fact in reports or not.

I this case, I entered the wrong date value in the first place. When I corrected the date value, the sort date didn’t change as expected. If it had changed as expected, the only thing I would have needed to do in the sort date would be to append the -1 for the Death fact and the -2 for the Death Record fact. As it was, I had to copy the date to the sort date for both facts before appending the -1 or the -2.

So I guess the question is, is this a bug or is it by design?

I would imagine it to be by design. If you alter the sort date and enter what amounts to a customization, I would expect the plan was that you would not want to alter that customization automatically. I personally do not want it to automatically change for me.

Well it did change it automatically in all cases in RM7. And it still changes it automatically in some cases in RM8. For example, suppose you have somebody born and died 12 Jan 1903. You can set the birth and death sort dates as 12 Jan 1903-1 and 12 Jan 1903-2, respectively. If you later discover that the actual birth and death dates were 13 Jan 1903 and change those dates, then RM8 will leave the sort dates alone.

But suppose instead you originally set the birth and death sort dates as 12 Jan 1903 and 13 Jan 1903 just to get the facts in the correct order. I know from numerous posts about this subject that some users do it that way rather than using the -suffix dates. Then if you make the same corrections to the actual birth and sort dates to set them both to 13 Jan 1903, then in this case RM8 will not leave the sort dates alone. So there is a certain fuzziness.

I can live with it the way it is if it is viewed as by design, and I can live with it if it’s viewed as a bug and changed back to RM7 style. This is not a case where the RM7 design was distinctly better. I would just like to know if the RM8 style is a bug or if it’s by design. In the RM8 design, all sort dates are not created equal. Some left alone when the date changes and some are not.