Licenses
(UXPROD-574)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | ERM Platform |
| Components: | mod-licenses, stripes-erm-components, ui-licenses |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Licenses |
| Type: | Story | Priority: | TBD |
| Reporter: | Jag Goraya | Assignee: | Owen Stephens |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | erm | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | ERM Sprint 69 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Bienenvolk | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Licenses | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
When outputting license information to display in public facing systems, institutions may wish to add notes at the level of a license term value to display to the public. This is a separate note to the existing license term value note (implemented by
eResource Manager can add a public note for each license term value, as well as remove or edit them.
Workflow / UI Notes
Notes, constraints and business rules
Out of scope:
Wireframes 1 License edit pane, Terms accordion Notes:
2. License preview pane, Terms accordion Notes:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 24/Jul/19 ] |
|
Chalmers would ideally like this field to contain HTML with WYSWIG editor, but given
|
| Comment by Gill Osguthorpe [ 25/Jul/19 ] |
|
Owen Stephens I have suggested that Visibility is a mandatory field. Is this correct? On the current live app it is possible to save a license with an empty set of terms fields as none of them are mandatory so this would no longer be possible. Is it correct for the Term Name to be optional? |
| Comment by steve.osguthorpe [ 30/Jul/19 ] |
|
Field on value is named "publicNote" |
| Comment by Jag Goraya [ 31/Jul/19 ] |
|
Owen Stephens picking up on the previous comments, can you confirm the following please for Sprint 69 implementation?
|
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 31/Jul/19 ] |
|
Jag Goraya 1 & 3: It's a slightly confusing situation because the way we've designed the UI. But I think for now neither Visibility nor Term Name should be marked as Mandatory. |
| Comment by steve.osguthorpe [ 31/Jul/19 ] |
|
How can term name be optional? |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 31/Jul/19 ] |
|
steve.osguthorpe "It's a slightly confusing situation because the way we've designed the UI" I think it is probably more confusing rather than less to mark these things as mandatory when you don't actually have an option. However, perhaps I should be clear: |
| Comment by Claudia Malzer [ 31/Jul/19 ] |
|
I treat name and visibility as mandatory until decided otherwise |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 01/Aug/19 ] |
|
Claudia Malzer does this mean leaving name as it currently is and treating visibility in the same way? We definitely should not be changing the behaviour of name as part of this issue |
| Comment by Claudia Malzer [ 01/Aug/19 ] |
|
Yes, somehow. The required property was already set for the name field, but not working. I fixed that, so that it works now. |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 01/Aug/19 ] |
|
OK. I'll obviously test when you've got something working. Just need to be very clear - I don't want the current behaviour (broken or not) to change! |
| Comment by Claudia Malzer [ 01/Aug/19 ] |
|
I didn't change anything on the behaviour I just made the asterisk visible |
| Comment by Claudia Malzer [ 02/Aug/19 ] |
|
Owen Stephens, steve.osguthorpe if a term value is not set, do we want to see the defaultInternal under Visibility? |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 02/Aug/19 ] |
|
Yes please |
| Comment by Gill Osguthorpe [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
md331, Claudia Malzer Just to clarify, as requested by Mark, the Public note field should be displayed at all times, in Edit and Preview, and when empty should contain a "-". |
| Comment by Claudia Malzer [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
Gill Osguthorpe Even in the preview pane and if the visibility is internal? When Visibility=Public and the "Public note" field is blank, display the field label and a "-". |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
I reviewed this this morning and the approach as currently implemented seemed right to me. I did consider this specific question when doing the QA and concluded that showing the Public Note field in the preview panel only when "Visibility" was set to Public was probably the best approach. I'm happy to look at changing this based on feedback from users, but this seems like a good starting point to me. |
| Comment by Gill Osguthorpe [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
So as per the wireframe Owen Stephens and not as per this comment which says the Public note should be reviewable even when visibility is internal? "Wireframe suggests that the "Public Note" should only displayed when visibility set to "Public". This is incorrect. The option to edit the Public Note field should be present at all times (this enables a public note to be set and reviewed in the system before being made public to users)". |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
Gill Osguthorpe that's for the Edit view - and has been implemented as per the comment It's in the agreements display/license preview panel that the Public Note is hidden when the Visibility is set to Internal - and that matches the wireframe and description under (2) in the description |
| Comment by Gill Osguthorpe [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
I think it's the phrase "reviewed in the system" which caused the uncertainty Owen Stephens. I interpreted that as being the Preview rather than the Edit pane. I'm sure it's clear enough to everyone now though! |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
Yes - I can see that is ambiguous. Apologies |