Fees/Fines (UXPROD-792)

[UXPROD-1248] Fee/Fine History/Details/Other Displayed Info - Q1 2019 release updates Created: 22/Oct/18  Updated: 31/Aug/21  Resolved: 27/Mar/19

Status: Closed
Project: UX Product
Components: Fees/Fines
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: Q1 2019
Parent: Fees/Fines

Type: New Feature Priority: P2
Reporter: Holly Mistlebauer Assignee: Holly Mistlebauer
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: feesfines, mandatory, resourceaccess
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Issue links:
Relates
relates to UICHKOUT-33 Update borrower information on checko... Closed
relates to UIU-688 Add User Information Fee/Fine section... Closed
Epic Link: Fees/Fines
Front End Estimate: Medium < 5 days
Front End Estimator: Holly Mistlebauer
Front-End Confidence factor: Low
Back End Estimate: Medium < 5 days
Back End Estimator: Holly Mistlebauer
Development Team: UNAM
Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): R1
Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): R1
Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): R1
Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): R1
Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): R1
Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): R1

 Description   

This feature does not need to be ranked--this is a holding place for changes to Fee/Fine History/Details that are needed for the Q1 2019 release and will be done regardless of rankings.



 Comments   
Comment by Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se) [ 25/Oct/18 ]

Cate BoeremaHolly Mistlebauer Chalmers have not discussed this ticket, it has been automatically set for Go-live. This is not the only one. Does this not take away some of the purpose with these rankings?

Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 25/Oct/18 ]

Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se), sometimes when a PO splits a feature that has already been ranked into two parts, they apply the rankings from the original to the spin-off. They use their discretion to determine if the spin-off is substantially different from the original (if so, they don't carry over the rankings). Does this seem like a reasonable practice or would you rather we never carry over rankings?

Comment by Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se) [ 25/Oct/18 ]

We think it is better practice to not have the rankings carried over. Then the Jira tickets are more easy to find and discuss. Also, they are not automatically showing in the "Remaining not in Q4 " column that people might look in order to get a picture of the prospects for a Go live after the Q4 release.

Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 25/Oct/18 ]

Cate Boerema I can't speak for all of the POs, but the many tasks that Theodor has flagged today are tasks that need to be done for the release regardless of the ranking given by the institutions. These activities all have names that end with "Q1 release updates." I don't want the institution to take the time to rank the features. In many cases I don't even know yet what will be included, I just know that we need to make some changes to the settings, history, details, etc. for the features that are in Q1. I am just preparing for the next release. Now that the institutions are being pro-active, I would like to see a Rank option that says "rank not needed" or "not ready for ranking". I can then select that option for all of the institutions when I create a planning feature like the ones I recently set up. Thanks!

Comment by Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se) [ 08/Nov/18 ]

Could we find a way to make these ones not be part of that calculated number on the FOLIO Q4 2018 Weekly Status Report (https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/display/PC/FOLIO+Q4+2018+Weekly+Status+Report)? The one quoted below

NOTE: There are also 21 issues (UXPROD features) that have not yet been ranked by Chalmers. As these features are ranked, we should expect the features needed below to increase.

Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 08/Nov/18 ]

Good point, Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se). Holly Mistlebauer, should we tag this with "mandatory"? The mandatory features, like NFRs, are excluded from the features that need rankings.

Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 08/Nov/18 ]

Cate Boerema, I didn't know there was a mandatory tag. That's excellent. It is a label like NFR? I will add the label to the few features I have that don't need to be rated. Thanks!

Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 08/Nov/18 ]

Cate Boerema and Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se): I have labeled 8 issues as "mandatory." Thanks for the suggestion!

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:14:00 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.