Fees/Fines (UXPROD-792)

[UXPROD-2135] Future Fees/Fines: Change Shared Fee/Fine Owner to be entered and flagged by institution Created: 01/Oct/19  Updated: 30/Jan/23

Status: Draft
Project: UX Product
Components: Fees/Fines
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: None
Parent: Fees/Fines

Type: New Feature Priority: TBD
Reporter: Holly Mistlebauer Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: NFR, Unassigned-from-Holly, feesfines, resourceaccess
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Attachments: PNG File screenshot-1.png    
Epic Link: Fees/Fines
Development Team: Vega
PO Rank: 0
Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): R5
Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): R4
Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): R4
Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): R4
Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): R4
Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): R4
Rank: hbz (TBD): R4
Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): R4
Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): R4

 Description   

#release_bug_triage Slack conversation:

Zak Burke: @hollyolepm, I have some concerns about how the “Shared” fee/fine owner concept has been modeled.
Specifically, tying business logic to a user-editable field (owner.name) seems dangerous; somebody could change the name to “Common Owner” or even “shared” (the current logic is case-sensitive) and unwittingly break things. Likewise, this will fail in any non-English environment when the tenant translates this owner-name to its own locale.
Could “shared” be a boolean attribute of an owner? This would allow any number of owners to be shared, and would be locale independent.

Holly Mistlebauer: @zburke, we actually planned for the Fee/Fine Owner table to be pre-populated with a Shared fee/fine owner that was uneditable. We haven't finished that part. I thought doing this would make the shareable feature obvious (given our lack of user documentation). Of course having an attribute would do the same thing, plus institutions could call it what they want and they wouldn't have an unused fee/fine owner in the table in case they didn't want to have shared fees/fines. I do think there should only be one shared set of fees/fines. At least for now. Thanks for the suggestion!

Zak Burke: Right, so, implement the is-shared attribute such that it can only be applied to a single owner.



 Comments   
Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 12/Jan/23 ]

Another option would be to allow a fee/fine type to be "shared" by fee/fine owners who want to include that fee/fine type.

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:21:25 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.