Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUG]: Report Downloaded is in mess with too many columns #274

Open
3 tasks done
DucleHan opened this issue Nov 23, 2023 · 10 comments
Open
3 tasks done

[BUG]: Report Downloaded is in mess with too many columns #274

DucleHan opened this issue Nov 23, 2023 · 10 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working sme

Comments

@DucleHan
Copy link

DucleHan commented Nov 23, 2023

What happened?

If we simply add more columns in table and dowaload it. Format will be in mess. I pasted zip file below where my App R code ‘OutputTest.R’ is also included. Here I used siteid as treatment variables.

image
report_231123110458.zip

sessionInfo()

No response

Relevant log output

No response

Code of Conduct

  • I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct.

Contribution Guidelines

  • I agree to follow this project's Contribution Guidelines.

Security Policy

  • I agree to follow this project's Security Policy.
@DucleHan DucleHan added the bug Something isn't working label Nov 23, 2023
@DucleHan DucleHan changed the title [BUG]: Report Downloaded is messy with many columns or page too wide [BUG]: Report Downloaded is in mess with too many columns Nov 23, 2023
@chlebowa chlebowa added the sme label Nov 23, 2023
@Melkiades
Copy link
Contributor

@kartikeyakirar, Could you please take a look at this? It is related to teal reports. Thanks!!!

@kartikeyakirar
Copy link
Contributor

kartikeyakirar commented May 28, 2024

The latest version of teal.reporter does not have the issue of overlapping content. However, the table shown in the example is too wide to be adjusted within the PDF. As a result, the issue of not displaying the entire table still persists. This requires pagination and breaking the table to fit into the available spaces, similar to how it is done when the PDF of the table is downloaded directly from the widget with pagination.
CC @donyunardi @Melkiades
Transferring this issue to teal.reporter.
image

@kartikeyakirar kartikeyakirar transferred this issue from insightsengineering/teal.modules.clinical May 28, 2024
@Melkiades
Copy link
Contributor

Melkiades commented May 28, 2024

I am quite sure that this issue still belongs to teal.reporter. export_as_pdf should have somewhat an idea of what is the viewportwidth and it should complain. Can you link the PR with the changes you mentioned?

@kartikeyakirar
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I have already transferred it to teal.reporter. I can produce the above image with code attached to the issue, with the current version of teal.reporter and overlapping was not observed only a complete view of the table is not available because of the too many columns.

I think the latest changes due to #265 might have fixed the overlapping problem. But earlier, I was not able to see the overlapping issue. But I did not check with these many columns before.

@donyunardi
Copy link
Contributor

@kartikeyakirar
Is this behavior only for PDF output or does it behaves the same for other outputs?

@DucleHan
Copy link
Author

DucleHan commented May 28, 2024 via email

@Melkiades
Copy link
Contributor

Not only pdf but all output files. Thanks for your attention in advance!

@DucleHan remember to trim the email if you use emails ;)

@kartikeyakirar
Copy link
Contributor

Is this behavior only for PDF output or does it behaves the same for other outputs?

all formats except HTML have space limitation issues. This problem persists. The tables discussed in the issue are very large, for example.

Adverse Events Summary

BRA-1 (N=8)

BRA-11 (N=8)

BRA-12 (N=1)

BRA-13 (N=1)

BRA-14 (N=2)

BRA-15 (N=1)

BRA-2 (N=2)

BRA-3 (N=2)

BRA-4 (N=2)

BRA-5 (N=1)

BRA-6 (N=1)

BRA-7 (N=1)

CAN-1 (N=2)

CAN-11 (N=2)

CAN-14 (N=1)

CAN-4 (N=2)

CAN-5 (N=1)

CHN-1 (N=57)

CHN-10 (N=1)

CHN-11 (N=48)

CHN-12 (N=8)

CHN-13 (N=8)

CHN-14 (N=9)

CHN-15 (N=6)

CHN-16 (N=6)

CHN-17 (N=11)

CHN-18 (N=3)

CHN-2 (N=16)

CHN-3 (N=11)

CHN-4 (N=9)

CHN-5 (N=11)

CHN-6 (N=4)

CHN-7 (N=6)

CHN-8 (N=2)

CHN-9 (N=3)

GBR-1 (N=3)

GBR-11 (N=2)

GBR-13 (N=1)

GBR-15 (N=1)

GBR-17 (N=1)

GBR-6 (N=1)

JPN-1 (N=5)

JPN-11 (N=3)

JPN-12 (N=1)

JPN-14 (N=1)

JPN-17 (N=2)

JPN-18 (N=1)

JPN-2 (N=1)

JPN-3 (N=1)

JPN-5 (N=2)

JPN-6 (N=1)

NGA-1 (N=10)

NGA-11 (N=6)

NGA-12 (N=2)

NGA-17 (N=2)

NGA-2 (N=2)

NGA-4 (N=2)

NGA-5 (N=1)

NGA-6 (N=1)

PAK-1 (N=10)

PAK-11 (N=9)

PAK-12 (N=2)

PAK-13 (N=2)

PAK-14 (N=1)

PAK-15 (N=1)

PAK-2 (N=3)

PAK-4 (N=2)

PAK-5 (N=1)

RUS-1 (N=1)

RUS-11 (N=4)

RUS-12 (N=1)

RUS-13 (N=1)

RUS-14 (N=1)

RUS-16 (N=2)

RUS-18 (N=1)

RUS-2 (N=1)

RUS-3 (N=1)

RUS-4 (N=3)

RUS-5 (N=1)

RUS-6 (N=1)

RUS-7 (N=1)

USA-1 (N=10)

USA-11 (N=9)

USA-12 (N=6)

USA-14 (N=1)

USA-15 (N=2)

USA-17 (N=2)

USA-19 (N=1)

USA-2 (N=1)

USA-3 (N=2)

USA-4 (N=2)

USA-5 (N=1)

USA-6 (N=1)

USA-8 (N=1)

USA-9 (N=1)

All Patients (N=400)

Total number of patients with at least one adverse event

7 (87.5%)

6 (75.0%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

0

52 (91.2%)

0

45 (93.8%)

8 (100%)

8 (100%)

9 (100%)

6 (100%)

4 (66.7%)

8 (72.7%)

3 (100%)

16 (100%)

10 (90.9%)

8 (88.9%)

10 (90.9%)

3 (75.0%)

6 (100%)

2 (100%)

3 (100%)

3 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

4 (80.0%)

3 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

9 (90.0%)

6 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

0

10 (100%)

8 (88.9%)

1 (50.0%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

4 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

10 (100%)

9 (100%)

5 (83.3%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

365 (91.2%)

Total AEs

40

33

10

6

13

4

13

4

15

8

3

7

16

12

4

11

0

278

0

261

29

49

51

35

25

43

14

84

36

36

52

15

27

12

14

11

7

2

1

7

3

26

15

5

3

5

1

0

7

12

1

59

33

7

2

7

13

6

0

47

37

9

6

3

8

18

0

9

3

19

0

3

3

11

1

9

4

18

7

9

10

59

45

32

3

8

4

8

8

13

10

5

1

8

3

1934

Total number of deaths

3 (37.5%)

2 (25%)

0

0

1 (50%)

1 (100%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

0

0

0

9 (15.8%)

1 (100%)

6 (12.5%)

2 (25%)

1 (12.5%)

1 (11.1%)

3 (50%)

1 (16.7%)

2 (18.2%)

1 (33.3%)

4 (25%)

1 (9.1%)

0

2 (18.2%)

2 (50%)

1 (16.7%)

0

1 (33.3%)

1 (33.3%)

0

0

0

1 (100%)

0

0

0

0

0

2 (100%)

0

0

0

0

0

2 (20%)

1 (16.7%)

1 (50%)

0

0

1 (50%)

0

0

2 (20%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (50%)

0

1 (100%)

2 (50%)

0

0

0

1 (50%)

0

1 (100%)

0

0

0

1 (100%)

0

1 (10%)

3 (33.3%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (50%)

0

0

0

0

70 (17.5%)

Total number of patients withdrawn from study due to an AE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (50%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 (5.3%)

0

2 (4.2%)

1 (12.5%)

0

0

0

0

1 (9.1%)

1 (33.3%)

0

0

0

1 (9.1%)

0

0

0

0

0

1 (50%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (10%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (100%)

1 (10%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14 (3.5%)

Total number of patients with at least one

Serious AE

7 (87.5%)

5 (62.5%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

0

43 (75.4%)

0

39 (81.2%)

6 (75.0%)

7 (87.5%)

8 (88.9%)

4 (66.7%)

3 (50.0%)

6 (54.5%)

3 (100%)

16 (100%)

6 (54.5%)

6 (66.7%)

8 (72.7%)

3 (75.0%)

5 (83.3%)

2 (100%)

3 (100%)

1 (33.3%)

2 (100%)

0

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

4 (80.0%)

2 (66.7%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

9 (90.0%)

6 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

0

2 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

0

8 (80.0%)

6 (66.7%)

1 (50.0%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (75.0%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (33.3%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

9 (90.0%)

6 (66.7%)

4 (66.7%)

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

2 (100%)

1 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

304 (76.0%)

Total number of unique preferred terms which are

Serious AE

4

4

2

1

2

2

2

1

4

2

0

2

3

2

1

3

0

4

0

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

3

4

3

4

3

2

0

0

3

1

4

4

2

1

2

1

0

2

3

1

4

4

1

0

3

2

1

0

4

3

2

2

2

1

4

0

2

2

2

0

1

1

2

0

1

2

2

3

2

3

4

4

4

1

1

2

2

1

3

3

2

0

2

1

4

Total number of adverse events which are

Serious AE

19

10

2

2

6

2

4

1

6

3

0

2

8

3

1

5

0

109

0

103

14

19

24

9

13

19

5

40

13

18

25

7

13

7

11

4

2

0

0

5

1

12

7

2

1

2

1

0

5

3

1

26

17

1

0

3

5

1

0

17

10

2

2

2

3

14

0

2

2

5

0

2

1

3

0

2

3

3

3

3

4

25

20

12

1

2

2

3

1

4

4

2

0

4

1

786

Medical concepts: number of patients with

C.1.1.1.3/B.2.2.3.1 AESI (BROAD)

4 (50.0%)

3 (37.5%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (100%)

0

2 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

0

33 (57.9%)

0

28 (58.3%)

6 (75.0%)

6 (75.0%)

6 (66.7%)

3 (50.0%)

3 (50.0%)

3 (27.3%)

1 (33.3%)

10 (62.5%)

6 (54.5%)

5 (55.6%)

7 (63.6%)

3 (75.0%)

3 (50.0%)

2 (100%)

1 (33.3%)

0

1 (50.0%)

0

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (40.0%)

1 (33.3%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

0

0

0

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

6 (60.0%)

4 (66.7%)

1 (50.0%)

0

1 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

0

7 (70.0%)

4 (44.4%)

0

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (66.7%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

3 (75.0%)

0

0

0

1 (50.0%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

2 (66.7%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

6 (60.0%)

6 (66.7%)

5 (83.3%)

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)

0

1 (100%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)

1 (100%)

0

1 (100%)

0

226 (56.5%)

Medical concepts: number of unique preferred terms which are part of

C.1.1.1.3/B.2.2.3.1 AESI (BROAD)

2

2

2

1

2

0

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

0

2

0

0

1

1

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

2

1

1

2

2

1

0

1

1

1

0

2

2

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

2

0

2

Medical concepts: number of adverse events which are part of

C.1.1.1.3/B.2.2.3.1 AESI (BROAD)

6

4

2

1

2

0

2

1

2

0

1

1

2

1

1

2

0

67

0

52

6

7

9

4

8

3

1

21

7

11

10

8

5

5

4

0

2

0

0

3

1

8

2

1

1

0

0

0

4

1

1

10

9

1

0

1

2

3

0

11

6

0

1

1

3

2

0

1

1

4

0

0

0

1

0

3

1

5

1

3

1

12

10

11

1

4

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

4

0

399

@Melkiades
Copy link
Contributor

@kartikeyakirar it is possible to use pagination to get different matrix_forms that will fit the page

@kartikeyakirar
Copy link
Contributor

The current implementation for pagination works in the export_as_* for pdf and doc format, but I believe it needs to be adapted to use flextable. This change is necessary to ensure the table functionality is consistent across other formats, such as PowerPoint . I will investigate this further.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working sme
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants