Loans
(UXPROD-788)
|
|
| Status: | Open |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Loans |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | TBD |
| Reporter: | Emma Boettcher | Assignee: | Cheryl Malmborg |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | anonymizing, cornell-priority, reporting, round_iv, usermanagement | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Loans | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | Medium | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | Large < 10 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Marc Johnson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Estimation Notes and Assumptions: | Requires integration with provider of custom-fields interface, this is a multiple implementation interface meaning that circulation needs to understand how to discriminate. I'm not sure how dependencies work for multiple interface implementations (it might be that it is satisfied by any implementation, which would mean this would break at runtime) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | None | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kiwi Planning Points (DO NOT CHANGE): | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): | R3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Current situation or problem: Some institutions would like to keep additional information about patrons on the loan, in particular information which they've implemented using custom fields. In scope
Out of scope
Use case(s) Proposed solution/stories Links to additional info Questions |
| Comments |
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 24/Oct/19 ] |
|
Hi Emma Boettcher - department is going to end up being its own field - https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-1295 UM is planning to reopen the Jira to implement statistical codes, so you could end up with some variation of libraries wanting to retain That sure feels like a lot to try to manage code-wise. Maybe a thin thread would be to include departmental field; or just include statistical codes when they are implemented, though I don't know when that's happening. Also, I know that patron group doesn't show up in the loan details pane. How does this extra stuff get retained as part of the loan record? Is it part of the loan record from the beginning (just not showing), or does it get pulled in when the loan is anonymized? |
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 24/Oct/19 ] |
|
Erin Nettifee Thanks for letting me know about department. I think that was the major use case for wanting to retain custom fields, so that may be something to bring up with the SIG. Patron group: it will store the patron group on the loan at check out. This does not show on the loan details screen, though the patron's current patron group does, at the top: |
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 24/Oct/19 ] |
|
Well I could imagine other cases where departments might want to use custom fields and have that info retained on an anonymized loan, so I don't know that moving department to its own field gets rid of the need. For example, I know at Duke we will most likely use custom fields to store information about the department who sponsored an affiliate researcher, and want that to be retained after anonymization.... And thanks for the pointer that the group is there, I hadn't picked up on that. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 05/May/20 ] |
|
Hi Emma Boettcher could you please say more in the description of this feature about how this relates to the work already completed in
|
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 05/May/20 ] |
|
Cate Boerema Custom fields didn't exist when
|
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 06/May/20 ] |
|
Oh, okay, thanksI I thought it was maybe about customizing at a tenant level which patron info to retain. I changed the title to clarify - hope that's okay. |
| Comment by patty.wanninger [ 06/May/20 ] |
|
User Management notes that some custom fields in users should NOT be retained as they might contained identifiable information. Only custom fields that are serving as statistical should be retained. Can custom fields be designated as "to be retained" or not. |
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 08/May/20 ] |
|
Marc Johnson and Zak Burke, could you estimate this feature? Not sure who on Core: Functional usually estimates, so if I need to ask someone else let me know. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 12/May/20 ] |
|
Hmm, I have some questions (they assume that custom fields in this feature refers to the new custom fields capability, rather than a custom set of regular fields).
|
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 12/May/20 ] |
|
Marc Johnson Patty and I need to discuss your first bullet point. I had assumed it was fixed, but it may be that they would have to be chosen. We capture patron group at the point the item is checked out/loan is created, so that's what it would be for custom fields too. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 13/May/20 ] |
Thanks, should we wait until that is decided before this is estimated, as it might make a difference, or we can assume one way or the other? |
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 28/May/20 ] |
|
Marc Johnson for estimating, assume for now that custom fields have some flag on them that says whether they have personally identifying information or not, and that that can be used to determine whether to store those fields on the loan. |