Inventory
(UXPROD-785)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Inventory |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Charlotte Whitt | Assignee: | Charlotte Whitt |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | round_iv | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Inventory | ||||||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimator: | Charlotte Whitt | ||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | Very Small (VS) < 1day | ||||||||||||||||
| Estimation Notes and Assumptions: | CW: This feature is defined by one story: |
||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Prokopovych | ||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 137 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Purpose: To create Inventory permission for View of Instance records which are marked as Staff suppress. Usecase:
In scope:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 28/May/20 ] |
Charlotte Whitt, we already have basic CRUD permissions for Inventory. Should this be removed from the above description?
There is a lot here. I think we need to parse it.
They could do that today, if they were given "Inventory: View, create, edit items". Are you saying we need a permission that would provide access to edit just a single record? Or access to edit any records with a given type (e.g. equipment)? For the former, Teams might be a potential solution. I don't think we have any architecture in place to support the latter.
We already have a permission to support this.
Putting permissions around specific actions like withdrawing items is currently only possible when we have a dedicated endpoint for that action. For withdrawn, we have such an endpoint and Emma Boettcher has a story in for creating a permission for Withdrawn (
We have long discussed the need for "action based permissions" (
Thanks! |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 28/May/20 ] |
|
Cate Boerema - permission to view e.g. records being marked as Staff suppress is not an Action based permission. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 29/May/20 ] |
|
Yes, you're right. That one's not action-based. Thank you for updating the title - this is much clearer! |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 11/Nov/20 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema - this feature has kind of dropped under the radar. Shouldn't it be implemented for the round_iv libraries, so for R1 2021? Right now when a user have the regular permissions for Inventory, and perform a search, then the search result will include records which are marked as staff suppressed |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 11/Nov/20 ] |
|
You're right! It wasn't on our radar, given the PO rank was quite low. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a standard ui-only permission. As far as I know, FOLIO doesn't support permissions based around data (like staff suppress = yes). I could be wrong, though. Let's start by asking Bohdan Suprun and Sergiy Sergiyenko to estimate this and go from there. |
| Comment by Bohdan Suprun (Inactive) [ 11/Nov/20 ] |
|
Cate Boerema, Charlotte Whitt, You're right, we don't have data based permissions, only API endpoint permissions. There two ways to solve this:
There is also impact on other business flows, for example:
CC: Marc Johnson, Jakub Skoczen. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 11/Nov/20 ] |
|
Thanks Bohdan Suprun. Charlotte Whitt, if this proves tricky (as it seems it will be) could a workaround/simple fix be to make Inventory filter out the Staff suppress = Yes items by default? So users would have to click a checkbox to "include staff suppressed items"? |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 12/Nov/20 ] |
|
Bohdan Suprun Thanks for your thorough response, I agree that those are our options.
I believe FOLIO has a mechanism for this known as desired permissions (I tend to call the use of this mechanism action based permissions because I think it better describes the users intent). This mechanism has rarely been used. I believe Oleksandr Vidinieiev from the Vega team recently experimented with this approach for
An aspect of this particular feature that is especially involved is that these records should be omitted from search results. In order to do that, we would need to manipulate the CQL that the front-end provides to remove these records. We might also need to reject (or change) CQL queries where folks specifically ask for records that are suppressed when they don't have permission to do so. Normally, the interpretation of CQL is done by RAML Module Builder, this feature would likely mean needing to manipulate it in the module itself as well. Does that make sense? |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 16/Dec/20 ] |
|
Needed work. Right now everyone if having the right to view instance records, can also see records being suppressed. For the purpose of display of search results, then it's necessary to have this distinction between
|