Loans
(UXPROD-788)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Loans |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P2 |
| Reporter: | Emma Boettcher | Assignee: | Cheryl Malmborg |
| Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | Iris-2020-spillover, feesfines | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Loans | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | XL < 15 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Marc Johnson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Vega | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): | R3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Current situation or problem: The same group of settings also has a UI differentiating anonymization by payment method, but these settings are inactive. In scope
Out of scope Use case(s) Proposed solution/stories Links to additional info Questions
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 06/May/20 ] |
|
I can see that there is some UI work already done for this in Settings. So I'm guessing this is open because the backend work isn't done yet vis-a-vis
How Duke would rank this depends on whether the "never" option would be working. |
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 06/May/20 ] |
|
Erin Nettifee Yes, the ability to anonymize loans differently if they have fees/fines (including never anonymizing loans with fees/fines) is working. |
| 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 ] |
Does payment method refer to the reason for closure? Is a waived fee / fine represented as having had a full payment made with the method waived? (I'm assuming that a fee can be paid off with multiple payments) In essence, does this mean that an example configuration could be the following?
Can a loan have more than one fee or fine associated with it? If so, can they have different payment methods? |
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 12/May/20 ] |
|
Yes, payment method refers to reason for closure. And yes, there could be multiple payment methods associated with fees associated with the loans, so this would also need to handle what to do if those payment methods' anonymization schedules were in conflict. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 13/May/20 ] |
|
I've estimated this, it's based upon the assumptions that the current anonymization process already knows how to check the fees or fines for a loan (and know that they have been closed for a certain period of time) and that the logic for mixed payment methods isn't too complicated. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 13/May/20 ] |
|
Emma Boettcher Cate Boerema Holly Mistlebauer
Out of curiosity of the fees and fines domain, if there could be multiple payments made (some of which might be waivers) how is an overall reason for closure determined (or is it not)? |
| Comment by Emma Boettcher [ 13/May/20 ] |
|
Marc Johnson Following Holly Mistlebauer's clarification on Slack, I realize I've been mistakenly referring to fee/fine actions as payment methods in this story and others. I will edit this feature accordingly. I'm not sure of the answer to your question. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 13/May/20 ] |
That's ok, this is why I ask lots of awkward questions. I think I'm still trying to understand the distinction between an action and a payment method. In the system at the moment, an action has a payment method. At the moment, I'm assuming that there will be some logic to figure out the precedence of the various payment methods in the actions for a fee. What this does mean is that loan anonymization will likely need to get slower if it needs to fetch the actions for a fee / fine, not only the fee / fine. |
| Comment by Cheryl Malmborg [ 13/Sep/22 ] |
|
Stephanie Buck Khalilah Gambrell Erin Nettifee I think this can be closed see attachment from Lotus |
| Comment by Stephanie Buck [ 15/Sep/22 ] |
|
Addressed in Lotus. |