Lost Item Policy validation error with aging only recalls to lost

Description

Overview: Validation error appears if user enters an aged to lost value for recalls only (Recalled items aged to lost after overdue), and charges a Lost Item Processing Fee. FOLIO is requiring that Items aged to lost after overdue be entered. This validation should be changed so that if Recalled items aged to lost after overdue OR Items aged to lost after overdue are entered. Don't need both. I suspect this validation wasn't updated when we added the new recall fields for Chicago.

Steps to Reproduce:

  1. Log into Lotus BugFest as admin user

  2. Go to Settings->Circulation->Lost Item Fee Policies

  3. Press +New button

  4. Enter values as follows...

    • Items aged to lost after overdue = blank (the default value)

    • Patron billed after aged to lost = blank (the default value)

    • Recalled items aged to lost after overdue = 1 day(s)

    • Patron billed for recall after aged to lost = 2 day(s)

    • Set cost = 100.00

    • Lost item processing fee = 25.00

    • Charge lost item processing fee if item aged to lost by system? = Yes

    • Leave everything else at the default values

  5. Press Save & close button

Expected Results:
Lost Item Fee Policy is saved and page is closed.

Actual Results:
This error message appears under Items aged to lost after overdue: Entry required if 'Charge lost item processing fee if item aged to lost by system' selected, as shown below...

Additional Information:
URL:
Interested parties:

CSP Request Details

None

CSP Rejection Details

None

Potential Workaround

None

Attachments

5

Checklist

hide

TestRail: Results

Activity

Show:

Stephanie BuckApril 7, 2022 at 4:32 PM

, I picked this test up and have verified it on Lotus bugfest. This is all set. 

Thanks, !

Oleksii PetrenkoApril 6, 2022 at 9:02 PM

Deployed to Lotus BF. Please proceed with verification

julie.bickleApril 6, 2022 at 9:11 AM

I confirm that this works as described in the "Steps to Reproduce", in Snapshot.

Pavel SpichonakApril 6, 2022 at 8:47 AM

Hi .

It is fixed. Please review it on snapshot.

Thanks!

Brooks TravisMarch 31, 2022 at 2:54 PM

 yeah, not thrilled with the wording on the first image, but also not sure how to improve it. The rest looks right.

Done

Details

Assignee

Reporter

Tester Assignee

Priority

Story Points

Sprint

Development Team

Vega

Fix versions

Release

Lotus (R1 2022) Bug Fix

RCA Group

Implementation coding issue

TestRail: Cases

Open TestRail: Cases

TestRail: Runs

Open TestRail: Runs

Created March 22, 2022 at 7:29 PM
Updated April 7, 2022 at 4:32 PM
Resolved April 6, 2022 at 9:11 AM
TestRail: Cases
TestRail: Runs