Epic to link all support issues located in Dev projects
(SUP-12)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | ERM Platform |
| Components: | ui-agreements |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Epic to link all support issues located in Dev projects |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | P1 |
| Reporter: | Carole Godfrey | Assignee: | Aditya matukumalli |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | agreements, erm, support | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||
| Sprint: | ERM Sprint 126, ERM Sprint 127 | ||||||||
| Development Team: | Bienenvolk | ||||||||
| Release: | R3 2021 Bug Fix | ||||||||
| Affected Institution: |
MI State University/Library of Michigan
|
||||||||
| Epic Link: | Epic to link all support issues located in Dev projects | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Overview: Attempting to edit an Agreement that has an Agreement Line (which has 180 poLines) results in an error message (per attached image) Network traffic shows request to This is observed on an Iris HF3 environment
*Expected Results:*Agreement can be edited (without exception dialog box) Actual Results: Exception dialog box - Observe. ERROR: in module @folio/agreements, operation GET on resource 'OrderLines" failed, saying: Failed to fetch URL: |
| Comments |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 07/Oct/21 ] |
|
Before we dive in and look at a technical fix, I'd be interested in understanding the scenario which leads to a single agreement line being linked to such a large number of order lines - while we've not limited the number of POLs that can be added to a single agreement line, having such large numbers seems sub-optimal and while one option for us to "fix" might be to do multiple requests to the OrderLines API, I'd like to understand the context and if there are other approaches we might take to supporting this scenario. |
| Comment by Anya [ 11/Oct/21 ] |
|
Molly Driscoll Please see Owen Stephens's comment... |
| Comment by Anya [ 11/Oct/21 ] |
|
Support - Owen Stephens what project should this ticket be in rather than SUP. |
| Comment by Anya [ 11/Oct/21 ] |
|
Owen Stephens the priority is not set but the release is set for this hf3 – Support is not sure that it warrants a P1 or a HF3 candidate ... please weigh in on this. |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 11/Oct/21 ] |
|
Anya I didn't set the release, but I don't think this is a P1 / H3 candidate |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 11/Oct/21 ] |
|
Anya from my perspective I'd like to get the issue bottomed out before we move it into a different project - but if this is a problem from a support workflow it could go into the ERM Platform project - but I'd really prefer to have actionable stories in there which this isn't (yet) |
| Comment by Molly Driscoll [ 13/Oct/21 ] |
|
Owen Stephens I've been working with this library and here is a little background on their setup. They have decided to create agreements with agreement lines for the package, rather than individual titles. This makes it easier to manage new title acquisition because they're selecting in a single place (the eHoldings app) and their controlling license terms are automatically cascading to the selected titles without having to take the additional step of adding a new agreement line for each title. However, they are paying for the selections in a few e-book packages on a title-by-title basis, so need to attach the POL for each title to the agreement line to establish the connection to the acquisitions module. For some of their e-book packages, this represents a larger quantity of POL. This issue doesn't apply as much to their journal agreements, where they are typically paying at the package level, rather than the title level. I hope this helps to clarify, but please let me know if you need additional info. Thanks! |
| Comment by Anya [ 18/Oct/21 ] |
|
Support : Zak Burke will be looking into this... |
| Comment by Zak Burke [ 18/Oct/21 ] |
|
Owen Stephens, on a technical level, this sounds exactly like
|
| Comment by Anya [ 25/Oct/21 ] |
|
Support: Owen Stephens just checking to see if you saw the comment above... |
| Comment by Anya [ 01/Nov/21 ] |
|
Support: Owen Stephens please see comments above
|
| Comment by Molly Driscoll [ 01/Nov/21 ] |
|
Owen Stephens the library reports this persists in their Juniper dry-run environment. Do we have a timeline for resolution? At this time they need to acknowledge the error several times to even access the agreement record, then the record itself provides no access point to the order.
|
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 02/Nov/21 ] |
|
Thanks Anya Molly Driscoll Zak Burke. I've asked Adi prioritise this so we can fix this issue for the Kiwi release. |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 03/Nov/21 ] |
|
Discussion at ERM delivery call 3rd November: OS to setup test case on kiwi bugfest |