[MODINVSTOR-279] Add an electronic location & service point to the sample data in folio-testing, -snapshot, and -snapshot-stable Created: 22/Mar/19 Updated: 08/May/19 Resolved: 05/May/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | mod-inventory-storage |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | 15.4.0 |
| Type: | Story | Priority: | P2 |
| Reporter: | Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) | Assignee: | Dmytro Popov |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | back-end | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Core: F - Sprint 61, Core: F - Sprint 62 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Story Points: | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Prokopovych | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Tester Assignee: | Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Purpose: To have a persistent location and service point for electronic materials as part of the location sample data in folio-testing, folio-snapshot, and folio-snapshot-stable As a staff person Notes:
Scenarios
See attached screenshots for Campus Setting, Library Setting, Location Setting, and Location Details |
| Comments |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 22/Mar/19 ] |
|
Cate Boerema we need an online location to persist in the hosted environments, so that we can assign it during order creation, if the order is building holdings (and maybe items) over in Inventory. It also might help with identifying circulation/architectural issues that may not have been noticed yet, since all the locations have been for physical materials. (For example, Service Point is a required field for a location. But if the location is for electronic material that will not be checked out or returned, should Service Point be required? Will it be necessary to build an "Online" Service Point?) I'd like all 3 of the test environments to be updated. Let me know if I need to break scenarios 4-6 (folio-snapshot) and 7-9 (folio-snapshot-stable) into separate stories. I'm also not sure what project to assign it to, so passing it to you for further triage. Please let me know if any questions. Thank you! |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 25/Mar/19 ] |
|
Thanks for the heads up Ann-Marie Breaux. Is this bootstrap data we are added for the convenience of testing or is it needed for the proper functioning of the system? If it's needed for the proper functioning of the system, should it be a location record that is fixed for all tenants (can't be deleted etc)? |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 25/Mar/19 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema Just for the convenience of testing. For regular tenants, they should be able to decide how they want to set up their online location(s), so no need to make this a fixed folio-wide location record. Question: do we need to set up a bootstrap "Online" service point too, so that we're not assigning a physical service point? |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 25/Mar/19 ] |
I don't think it matters, but I haven't thought through all the implications of having online resources in Inventory. If we don't do anything special to prevent it, these items will be available to request and check out. Is that a problem? |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 25/Mar/19 ] |
|
Yes Cate Boerema - that's partially why I want the location in there - so that it might force folks to start thinking about those implications. It'll be the minority of libraries that actually build item records for eResources. Most will stop at the holdings level, if they load anything at all into Inventory for eResources. So far, the only folks talking about item records for eResources have been some of the German libraries. For now, I think it's fine to allow requesting and check out, knowing that might lead to some additional stories to deal with the fallout. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 25/Mar/19 ] |
|
Cate Boerema The reason I asked about a bootstrap service point is that you can't finish creating a location without a service point, and it seems weird to user Circ Desk 1 or Circ Desk 2 as the service point for an eResource |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 26/Mar/19 ] |
Yeah, I get it. I don't have any problem with an additional bootstrap SP being created for this purpose, but I also don't think there is an issue if you use Circ desk 1 or 2. It's up to you, really. Maybe ask them to set it up how you believe it would be set up in the real world.
Makes sense. I'll put this on the agenda backlog for the RA SIG |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 26/Mar/19 ] |
|
Cate Boerema Good point. I spoke with 5 Colleges, and they think it makes sense to have a separate service point for online. Should I add that to this story or create a separate story and link it to this one? |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 26/Mar/19 ] |
|
I think you can add it here. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 26/Mar/19 ] |
|
OK - done - please let me know if this looks OK, and if it's ready for grooming/scheduling. Also, I can break out the 3 separate environments into 3 separate tickets if that's better. Thank you Cate Boerema! |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 26/Mar/19 ] |
|
Actually Jakub Skoczen is the PO for this team |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 26/Mar/19 ] |
|
Thanks Cate Boerema! Jakub Skoczen: could you review this? Should I break the 3 environments into 3 separate stories? Is this ready for grooming and scheduling? Please let me know if questions. Thank you! |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 09/Apr/19 ] |
|
Jakub Skoczen Oleksii Popov Just checking on this ticket - I think it should be ready for grooming. Any idea when Core-Platform might be able to fit it in? |
| Comment by Jakub Skoczen [ 10/Apr/19 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux Since Q1 data loading is performed within the module (in this case mod-inventory-storage) and not in the CI system. Cate Boerema Would this task be more suitable for Core Functional (Niels) ? |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 11/Apr/19 ] |
|
Jakub Skoczen Cate Boerema Thanks for finding the right home for this! A-M |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Ian Hardy John Malconian Wayne Schneider The pull request to add these to the reference records for mod-inventory-storage was merged yesterday. My understanding was that the environments used the loanReference parameters to the install endpoint / Tenant API to load these records. However the new records do not appear in either folio-testing or folio-snapshot. Have I got the wrong understanding? Any ideas why this might not have worked? |
| Comment by Ian Hardy [ 03/May/19 ] |
That's correct. Looking at the logs on folio-testing's mod-inventory-storage container (mod-inventory-storage-15.4.0-SNAPSHOT.261) I see the other two files getting read, but not the new online.json file. Not sure why not but can look into it. 03 May 2019 03:58:06:818 INFO TenantLoading [138597eqId] loadURL url=jar:file:/usr/verticles/mod-inventory-storage-fat.jar!/ref-data/service-points/cd2.json 03 May 2019 03:58:06:818 INFO TenantLoading [138597eqId] loadURL url=jar:file:/usr/verticles/mod-inventory-storage-fat.jar!/ref-data/service-points/cd1.json 03 May 2019 03:58:06:880 INFO LogUtil [138659eqId] org.folio.rest.RestVerticle start invoking putServicePointsByServicepointId |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Ian Hardy the new reference records were added in build 266. So I guess the question might be more, why isn’t that included in the environment? |
| Comment by Ian Hardy [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Looks looks like build 261 is newer by version number (15.4.0-SNAPSHOT.261) than build 266 ( 15.3.2-SNAPSHOT.266) |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Ian Hardy Interesting, it appears a merge has gone wrong somewhere. I'll add this to my list of things to sort. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Thank you for running this down, Ian Hardy and Marc Johnson. It will be great to see this soon! |
| Comment by Ian Hardy [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Marc Johnson I ran this by John and I think we can get it sorted by removing the 15.4x artifacts from the registry/dockerhub. We should get the 266 version in the next build now. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Ian Hardy does that mean those artefacts have already been removed? (It is likely 15.4.0 is the correct version, and 15.3.2 is a regression) |
| Comment by Ian Hardy [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Yes, 15.4.0-SNAPSHOT.261 is removed to allow the latest build 15.3.2-SNAPSHOT.266 to get picked up. Apologies if I've jumped the gun here. The previous several builds have been 15.3.2 so 15.4 looked like the anomaly. John Malconian might have some additional history here. Let us know here if we need to make further changes. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
What I imagine has happened is 15.3.0 was released, the next version was changed to 15.4.0. Then a merge, possibly from a bug fix, has set the version to the bug fix version by mistake. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Ian Hardy Thank you for responding and investigating quickly |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 05/May/19 ] |
|
Not showing up on folio-snapshot-stable yet, but looks OK on folio-testing and folio-snapshot, so I'll go ahead and close this |