One training rule them all

#1

Hello,

I would like to ask, if there is way how to make some training “above” other trainings?

We are currently going through revision of our safety training for our members and we we like to make this training mandatory to others.

We would like to achieve somethink like this:

Member will attend training for laser cutter and if he/she will not attend safety training, it will not be allowed to you this laser cutter until will have safety training.

Is this possible to achieve?

Thanks for answer.

#2

Hey @mzuzelka,

so you want a member to require two trainings to use the laser cutter: the safety training and the laser cutter training?

There’s no direct way to do that in Fabman right now. But I can think of a possible workaround:

  1. Create both training courses in Fabman, but do not add the laser cutter to the courses.
  2. Add a third course “Laser + Safety” and add the laser cutter to that course.
  3. Whenever someones completes the safety course or the laser cutter course, add the appropriate training record to their member data.
  4. Use a webhook (or a batch script if you have to) to give the “Laser + Safety” training to a member whenever they have completed both courses. (And set the end date to the minimum of the two other end dates.) You could also do this without a webhook or script, but then it becomes tedious.

Since neither the safety course nor the laser course give permission to use the laser, they can’t use the equipment if they have only one of those courses. Only when the third courses is added to they get the permission.

Of course this is not an ideal solution, but it seems feasible. The biggest disadvantage is that you have to have an extra course for each of your existing training courses (Laser, …).

#3

Basically yes, but this safety training would be for all trainings which we have here and they will probably grow in the future.

Thanks for workaround tip, but this would be very difficult to maintain and I think it would be prone to errors in member management.

Is it possible (even in longterm view) that this would/can be implemented to Fabman service?

.

#4

Yeah, I know the workaround isn’t great.

It’s not the first time someone mentioned this situation. I’d have to think about what kind of solution would fix your and related requirements without adding too much complexity to the already-complicated permission management.

1 Like