Allow for mapping the vendor, material supplier, and access provider based on CODE in MARC record

Description

Purpose: To confirm that mapping an incoming organization code from the MARC Bib into the Vendor field of the PO and/or Material supplier/Access provider fields of the POL works properly

As a staff person working with MARC Bib order data
I want FOLIO to be able to interpret the organization CODE data properly
So that I can use it to populate the Vendor, Material supplier, and Access provider fields of the PO/POL

Scenarios

  1. Scenario 1

    • Given the Data Import field mapping profile

    • When a user specifies a MARC field and subfield for the PO Vendor

    • Then use that data to find the appropriate FOLIO Organization to assign in the PO's Vendor field

    • NOTES:

      • The incoming MARC vendor code should be an exact match to the FOLIO organization code, except the match should ignore case (e.g. GOBI-1 and Gobi-1 and gobi-1 are the same Vendor, but are not the same Vendor as GOBI1, gobi.1, or Gobi_1)

      • Per the SMEs, MARC mapping is not required for the organization name or the organization name (organization code), but only for the organization code

  2. Scenario 2

    • Given the Data Import field mapping profile

    • When a user specifies a MARC field and subfield for the POL Material supplier

    • Then use that data to find the appropriate FOLIO Organization to assign in the POL's Material supplier field

    • NOTES:

      • The incoming MARC code should be an exact match to the FOLIO organization code, except the match should ignore case (e.g. GOBI-1 and Gobi-1 and gobi-1 are the same Material supplier, but are not the same Material supplier as GOBI1, gobi.1, or Gobi_1)

      • Per the SMEs, MARC mapping is not required for the organization name or the organization name (organization code), but only for the organization code

  3. Scenario 3

    • Given the Data Import field mapping profile

    • When a user specifies a MARC field and subfield for the POL Access provider

    • Then use that data to find the appropriate FOLIO Organization to assign in the POL's Access provider field

    • NOTES:

      • The incoming MARC code should be an exact match to the FOLIO organization code, except the match should ignore case (e.g. GOBI-1 and Gobi-1 and gobi-1 are the same Access provider, but are not the same Access provider as GOBI1, gobi.1, or Gobi_1)

      • Per the SMEs, MARC mapping is not required for the organization name or the organization name (organization code), but only for the organization code

Testing
Test the Vendor, Material supplier, and Access provider code mappings using 3 different field mapping profiles with 3 different mappings. Note that Material supplier and Access provider may or may not be the same organization as the Vendor. Vendor is a required field. Material supplier and Access provider are not required fields.

  1. Mapping 1

    • Order format: P/E Mix (so that Material supplier and Access provider can both be populated)

    • Vendor field mapping: 980$a

    • Material supplier mapping: 980$a

    • Access provider mapping: 980$b

    • Incoming data: 980 $agobi$bEbsco (will match for all 3 PO/POL fields, with GOBI for Vendor/Mat supplier, and EBSCO for Access provider)

  2. Mapping 2

    • Order format: P/E Mix (so that Material supplier and Access provider can both be populated)

    • Vendor field mapping: 980$a; else "GOBI Library Solutions"

    • Material supplier mapping: 980$a; else "GOBI Library Solutions"

    • Access provider mapping: 980$b; else "EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES"

    • Incoming data: no 980 field (will not match any incoming data, so will use the "else" data for all 3 fields)

  3. Mapping 3

    • Order format: P/E Mix (so that Material supplier and Access provider can both be populated)

    • Vendor field mapping: "GOBI Library Solutions"

    • Material supplier mapping: "GOBI Library Solutions"

    • Access provider mapping: "EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES"

    • Incoming data: 980 $agreen$bblue (will not try to match any incoming data; will use the default mapping instead for all 3 fields)

  4. And for a negative case, Mapping 4

    • Order format: P/E Mix (so that Material supplier and Access provider can both be populated)

    • Vendor field mapping: 980$a; else "GOBI Library Solutions"

    • Material supplier mapping: 980$a

    • Access provider mapping: 980$b

    • Incoming data: 980 $agoobie$bebbsco (will not match 980$a or $b; for Vendor, should cascade to to the else option, so GOBI Library Solutions. For Material supplier and Access provider, no "else" option and those fields are validated, but not required, so they should stay blank in the POL)

BE: cache for mod-orders and call for mod-organisations to get the mapping params to store them in cache will be added in scope of MODORDERS-844. In scope of this issue - adjust Reader to use mapping params 

CSP Request Details

None

CSP Rejection Details

None

Potential Workaround

None

Checklist

hide

TestRail: Results

Activity

Show:

Ann-Marie Breaux July 13, 2023 at 1:35 PM

Reminder for myself:

  • NLA: ca. 80K org records

  • Cornell: ca. 15K org records (per Jenn)

  • LOC: ca. 41K org records (per Joe)

Ann-Marie Breaux July 6, 2023 at 5:12 AM

Hi I was looking at this bugfix in relation to a question from a library. There's a comment about needing a release note explaining what to do if the tenant has more than 1000 organizations. I don't see a note about that in the Orchid release notes. Could you add it? Also, could you confirm we've done whatever override is necessary in Orchid Bugfest?Thank you!

Kateryna Senchenko February 27, 2023 at 4:40 PM

Hi , it took us a while, but we figured it out - this fix was included in main release - v4.0.0 - updated the ticket and closed this issue. Thank you!

Ann-Marie Breaux February 27, 2023 at 4:25 PM
Edited

Hi That all sounds good, and is already working on the bug.

and Is this work included in MODDICORE that has already been released, or does it need to be released as a Bugfix. I'm trying to figure out if I can close this bug or need to move it to Awaiting release. I'll move it to Awaiting release for now, and we can close it if it has already been released. Thank you!

Maksym Ishchenko February 24, 2023 at 10:55 AM
Edited

Hello  

This task verified on snapshot env. All looks good except the changing the fields not using reset "x" button. I create a bug for it (https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UIDATIMP-1388) so please look on it. Except this little thing, all works properly, so i send task to In Review 

cc:  

Done

Details

Assignee

Reporter

Priority

Story Points

Sprint

Development Team

Folijet

Fix versions

Release

Orchid (R1 2023)

RCA Group

Incomplete/missing requirements

TestRail: Cases

Open TestRail: Cases

TestRail: Runs

Open TestRail: Runs
Created February 2, 2023 at 7:20 AM
Updated August 16, 2023 at 3:50 PM
Resolved February 27, 2023 at 4:25 PM
TestRail: Cases
TestRail: Runs
Loading...