[FOLIO-1789] Rename loan rules to circulation rules Created: 07/Feb/19 Updated: 03/Feb/21 Resolved: 09/Feb/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | FOLIO |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Marc Johnson | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | potential-decision | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | |||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Julian Ladisch has suggested during his review of the recent loan rules syntax extension work, that now we use loan rules to determine loan, request and patron notice policies we rename loan rules to circulation rules? |
| Comments |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 07/Feb/19 ] |
|
Cate Boerema sthomas Jakub Skoczen What do you think about this proposal from a domain perspective? Who is responsible for this name? |
| Comment by sthomas (Inactive) [ 07/Feb/19 ] |
|
Marc Johnson From a conceptual standpoint - yes, I agree to change this to Circulation Rules. This is how the FOLIO circulation POs have been referring to this new evolved state and how we've been communicating about it within the RA-SIG. What are the implications from a technical standpoint? |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 09/Feb/19 ] |
|
sthomas Thanks. The implications from a technical perspective are that it is a breaking change to the circulation interface, because we would likely be renaming API endpoints. Breaking interface changes require a degree of coordination, likely more than the behavioural changes currently in
Now that it is confirmed that the domain terminology has changed, I think we can move the rest of this conversation to a scope and design discussion on
|