Expose license terms over API
(ERM-356)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | ERM Platform |
| Components: | mod-agreements |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Expose license terms over API |
| Type: | Sub-task | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Jag Goraya | Assignee: | steve.osguthorpe |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | erm | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Sprint: | ERM Sprint 78, ERM Sprint 70, ERM Sprint 71, ERM Sprint 75, ERM Sprint 76, ERM Sprint 72, ERM Sprint 73, ERM Sprint 77 | ||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Bienenvolk | ||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Support the ability to make an API and get a license JSON representation back for public facing properties. API should support requests by:
When a Request is made, relevant licenses should be identified by:
Once all relevant licenses have been identified the details of each relevant agreement+controlling license combination will be returned as the API response Multiple Agreement+License maybe returned to a single API call. The structure of response will be specified by
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Jag Goraya [ 24/Jul/19 ] |
Owen Stephens is the "license JSON representation" the one defined in
|
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 25/Jul/19 ] |
|
Yes |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 31/Jul/19 ] |
|
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 31/Jul/19 ] |
|
> What about this scenario Status = Cancelled AND Perpetual Access = Yes? >The eholdings resourceID = titleID+packageID? >What is the Agreement resource ID? |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 02/Aug/19 ] |
|
> What about this scenario Status = Cancelled AND Perpetual Access = Yes? >The eholdings resourceID = titleID+packageID? >What is the Agreement resource ID? |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 02/Aug/19 ] |
|
Thanks Khalilah Gambrell have updated description based on this. One additional question:
So if API were passed: 18-34-32090 (Harvard Business Review in the Academic ASAP package) Should that (ideally) return Agreement+License for all Agreements containing HBR (titleID = 32090) or only for those that contain HBR as part of Academic ASAP (i.e. Agreement line for packageID = 34 OR Agreement line for packageID+titleID 34-32090) ? My initial assumption had been only the latter - because if you are querying based on the package that will have specific licenses that apply. But happy to return more if we can (tbh we may have to explore exactly what's possible but at the moment just trying to understand the ideal from your perspective) |
| Comment by Jag Goraya [ 02/Dec/19 ] |
|
steve.osguthorpe what's the url structure for calling this to test please? /cc Owen Stephens |
| Comment by Claudia Malzer [ 02/Dec/19 ] |
|
I found a new erm/sas/publicLookup endpoint in Steves commits, no idea, if that's what you're looking for Jag Goraya, Owen Stephens |
| Comment by Owen Stephens [ 02/Dec/19 ] |
|
Thanks Claudia Malzer - I saw that and was trying to use it, but couldn't get an expected response (JSON with license details in) - I was unclear where the resourceId or referenceId should go (part of the path? or a parameter?) |
| Comment by steve.osguthorpe [ 03/Dec/19 ] |
|
Owen Stephens And the rule for nearly all our controllers is you can supply the following (all as encoded url parameters): `term`, `match`, `filters`, `sort` can only be used on the data stored in this module So you can not filter by license term from this endpoint. Bu also for this one I added You should be able to use a url like this for E-Holdings or other references should we add them: resourceId can be supplied for any of our resources that you can add to an agreement +titelInstance and it should do the correct joins. |