[UIIN-285] Settings > Inventory > Resource type. Unique resource type code Created: 12/Sep/18 Updated: 19/May/20 Resolved: 19/May/20 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | ui-inventory |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Charlotte Whitt | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Won't Do | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | bug-settings, front-end, triaged, ui-only | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Vega | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Overview: When a cataloger, with permission to add new resource types, creates a local folio term for resource type, then both the resource type term and resource type code has to be unique. When trying to add an existing term or existing code to a new resource type term, then an error message has to pop up. First when the new term and it's code both are unique, then the new term can be saved. Steps to Reproduce:
Expected Results: Actual Results: Additional Information:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 09/Aug/19 ] |
|
Khalilah Gambrell, I am reassigning these to Vega since Vega owns all the pre-requisite work. LMK if that doesn't make sense. |
| Comment by Darcy Branchini [ 05/May/20 ] |
|
A generic error message now appears but it's not useful to an end user. The message is, "Error on saving data." |
| Comment by Darcy Branchini [ 12/May/20 ] |
|
Cate Boerema Khalilah Gambrell, I'm honestly not sure what to do with this. It's old and the current situation is better than the original bug logged. Now a generic error is reported back to the user (before no error was reported back to the user), but everyone seems to agree that the error should be more descriptive and useful to the end user. Khalilah checked to see whether this could be fixed at a centralized level and it cannot. I don't think it should be closed just because it's old. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 12/May/20 ] |
|
Thanks Darcy Branchini. IMO we should allow this one to be closed with the old bugs, as it is (1) very low priority and (2) not trivial to fix (per your comment that Khalilah Gambrell already looked into it). If it later becomes an important issue and/or we find ourselves with the capacity to pick up bugs like this, we can always reopen this one. |
| Comment by Darcy Branchini [ 14/May/20 ] |
|
Charlotte Whitt, do you want to close this? Please see above comments. It's assigned to Vega but you're the reporter. I don't feel comfortable closing a bug that someone else reported. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 19/May/20 ] |
|
Hi Darcy Branchini - yes, we can close it. I'll remember to revive it, when the error surfaces again. No problem. |