Inventory
(UXPROD-785)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | R2 2021 | Parent: | Inventory |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Charlotte Whitt | Assignee: | Charlotte Whitt |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | inventory, metadatamanagement, po-mvp, round_iv | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimate: | Very Small (VS) < 1day | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimator: | Charlotte Whitt | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | Low | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | XXXL: 30-45 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Marc Johnson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Thor | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 136 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Ranking Note: | Aligned PO rank with Calculated Total rank. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cap Plan Fix Version (DO NOT CHANGE): | R2 2021 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Hungary (MVP End 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (Full TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Trinity College (Jun 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
CW - 12/18/2020 + 5/24/2021: I have split the original feature
The libraries ranking are kept in sync for all three features. Goal/Problem: Need to link multiple instance records to the same item. Design document: Cataloguing format of Use cases: If one title in a bound-with is checked-out; all other titles bound-with need to be shown as checked out. Analytic record needs to reflect circulation status of analyzed title Data elements needed? [feedback needed from RA] Related features:
MM-SIG working groups specifications: Slide deck - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CXD7K_b6sN6f9ZdKW0qRIYA7PLcsjucPMbRtJun2mCU/edit#slide=id.p Old documents: |
| Comments |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 12/Oct/18 ] |
|
Going to assume this was assigned to patty.wanninger in error and assign it back to Charlotte Whitt |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 12/Oct/18 ] |
|
This was split from
|
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 12/Oct/18 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema - yes, thanks |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 05/Dec/18 ] |
|
Removing Q1 2019 fix version due to limited capacity in Q1 2019. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 01/Jul/19 ] |
|
Removing the Q3 fix version until we have a handle on how RA will circulate these |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 03/Jul/19 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema - lew235 are willing to set up a meeting with the RA. This feature is something the German libraries really need. CC: Felix Hemme |
| Comment by frances.webb@cornell.edu [ 09/Sep/19 ] |
|
Would everyone agree that we should add a use case for, "Patron communication surrounding requests needs to be able to know which title within a bound-with item was actually requested." |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 02/Nov/20 ] |
|
Marc Johnson, Bohdan Suprun and Zak Burke can you guys please update the estimates on this feature? It seems way underestimated. Thanks |
| Comment by Bohdan Suprun (Inactive) [ 02/Nov/20 ] |
|
Cate Boerema, I guess Marc is the best person to provide BE estimate, but it definingly big. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 02/Nov/20 ] |
|
I've currently gone with a month and a half (and am thinking that might be too small), do you think it might be bigger? |
| Comment by Bohdan Suprun (Inactive) [ 02/Nov/20 ] |
|
Marc Johnson, the multiple holdings for an item model has been chosen, right? Then I agree with 30-40 days. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 02/Nov/20 ] |
Yes, that is the model that has been chosen. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 18/Dec/20 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer and Marc Johnson - FYI, I have split the original feature up, so
When the BE work is ready the Front end work can begin, and it will be covered in
The libraries ranking are kept in sync for both features. I hope this sounds all reasonable. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 18/Dec/20 ] |
|
Charlotte Whitt Niels Erik Nielsen Holly Mistlebauer
My understanding from the conversations that Zak Burke Bohdan Suprun and I had with the working group on this feature is that the changes in this feature will mean that items can be associated to 1 or more holdings records, rather than only one. Assuming this will be done by changing the relationship between items and holdings records from singular (holdingsRecordId) to many holdingsRecordIds), this would be a compatibility breaking change in the item-storage and inventory interfaces (and probably others, if they aggregate across this relationship). Are we intending to do these two features concurrently in order to coordinate the impact of the compatibility breaking changes (and so minimise the negative impact on the hosted environments)? And we are intending to make all of these changes before the early February (I don't know the specific date yet) feature freeze for the extended 2021 R1? cc: Zak Burke Kirstin Kemner-Heek lew235 Ian Ibbotson (Use this one) |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 17/Feb/21 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt This is tagged as R1 2021. Do you thin kit will be in Iris or later? And for
|
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 15/Mar/21 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux - please notice
|
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 19/Apr/21 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt and Marc Johnson Do you anticipate any schema changes for any of the Inventory record types? Just trying to figure out if we'll need to update anything over on the Data Import side. We got caught recently by a holdings schema change that we missed and had to make a fix. I'd like to avoid that for other schema changes, if possible. Thank you! |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 19/Apr/21 ] |
As the Prokopovych team is not conducting this work, I am not well placed to advise. Based upon my understanding from the last meeting I was involved in, the proposal involved significant structural changes to the inventory model (to allow an item be part of more than one holdings record) which would include changes to the schema. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 20/Apr/21 ] |
|
Thanks, Marc Johnson The team is not designated in the feature, so I wasn't sure. In any event, Charlotte Whitt it would be great to know ASAP if there are schema changes, especially if the work is being done in Juniper. We'll likely need to make some corresponding changes in Data Import or else risk breaking the Data Import Creates/Updates for Inventory record types. cc: Kelly Drake |
| Comment by Kelly Drake [ 20/Apr/21 ] |
|
Thanks for ccing me Ann-Marie Breaux. Given the possible/probably impact on Data Import Charlotte Whitt - we would most definitely need to know about any proposed schema changes (even if you are not entirely sure) soon. With a Juniper code deadline of 5/28.... yikes! Not much time there to adjust. |
| Comment by Niels Erik Nielsen [ 29/Apr/21 ] |
|
The design is intended to avoid any schema changes to existing record types in Inventory Storage. The design would extend Inventory Storage with a new database table, separate from existing record types. This table would hold links to all the titles included in a bound-with Item. For the convenience of Inventory clients, in particular ui-inventory, the Instance and Item schema of Inventory (mod-inventory) would, according to this design, each be extended with a read-only, boolean property named 'isBoundWith', basically reflecting if any bound-with records exist for said entities. The client might or might not pass in 'isBoundWith' in create/update request (to mod-inventory); a passed in value would be ignored by Inventory since the bound-with table is the source of truth. All changes are thus intended to be non-breaking, and should not disrupt any creates/updates for Inventory record types. Please note, however, that if a FOLIO installation chooses to populate the bound-with table, referential constraints will prevent deletion of holdings records or items of a bound-with until references to those entities are deleted from the bound-with table. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 29/Apr/21 ] |
|
Thanks Niels Erik Nielsen CC: Kelly Drake |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 11/May/21 ] |
|
Status: Today:
|