Manual test in FOLIO snapshot, http://folio-snapshot.aws.indexdata.com/, version @folio/inventory 1.7.1000440, using Chrome.

The fix is verified. All looks good. I'll close the ticket as done.

Other comments:
To be consequent in the naming of permissions, where it's only the locally defined terms there can be CRUD'ed then following permissions also need to be re-labled: Contributor type, and Formats - I'll write up jira ticket for this.

Slack chat (, )
Aditya Matukumalli [6:35 PM]
So should it be `Can create, edit and remove locally defined resource types`?
(...)

Charlotte Whitt [6:36 PM]
Yes, because the folio defined ones, are following the RDA standard for RDA carrier terms

Aditya Matukumalli [6:36 PM]
ok

Charlotte Whitt [6:36 PM]
Only the locally defined ones are editable

This permissions description was initially Can create, edit and remove resource types but thats been changed to Can create, edit and remove instance types. This is just a display name for the permission. The actual permissions haven't changed, so its not a big change. I can change this back easily to Can create, edit and remove resource types. Let me know if I should?

Hi - yes, we have a permission for each of the reference tables implemented in the Settings > Inventory except Resource types.

This might be part of the standard way, when adding new pages to the Settings app, using the Settings component. I never specified each permission per Settings page individually - maybe (who did most of the Settings pages) knows?

This bug - is probably a misspelling, while we do not have a Settings page for Instance types, but we miss one for Resource types.

CC:

Hi , Anton had this in his test cases that this permission should exist but it wasn't present. Can you verify that it should be?