Users App
(UXPROD-784)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Users App |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Cate Boerema (Inactive) | Assignee: | patty.wanninger |
| Resolution: | Won't Do | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | migration-load, round_iv, usermanagement | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Users App | ||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimate: | Small < 3 days | ||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimator: | István Bender | ||||||||||||
| Front End Estimator: | Jakub Skoczen | ||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | Large < 10 days | ||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Katalin Lovagné Szűcs | ||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Prokopovych | ||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 65 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R4 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R4 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: Hungary (MVP End 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Update import as needed to support new fields and features See, for example,
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 18/Sep/19 ] |
|
Cate Boerema - we discussed this in today's UM SIG. Can this be closed? We don't think this is the way that import is actually happening. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 19/Sep/19 ] |
Erin Nettifee could you please elaborate on this? My understanding is that, for every new field added to the Users UI, there is corresponding work that needs to be done on the user import to make it possible to actually import the data. Is that not your understanding? |
| Comment by Erin Nettifee [ 19/Sep/19 ] |
|
Sure. That matches our understanding. But in practice the work to add to the import is done as part of that feature and attached as a requirement to that feature for the field being added. So it seemed to us that this was more of an umbrella catch all that wasn’t actually capturing the work, so it could be closed. If we’re not understanding I think it’s fine to stay open too. We were just reviewing these as part of discussing responses to what didn’t make the CAPMVP plan. |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 17/Sep/20 ] |
|
patty.wanninger and Cate Boerema, should this feature be closed? |
| Comment by patty.wanninger [ 17/Sep/20 ] |
|
We have other tickets that describe specific functionality. |