Inventory (UXPROD-785)

[UXPROD-3798] Inventory. Item deletion. 2nd iteration. Do not allow item deletion e.g. if an open fine exists, has item status item status set to Claimed returned Created: 09/Sep/22  Updated: 21/Oct/22

Status: Open
Project: UX Product
Components: None
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: None
Parent: Inventory

Type: Umbrella Priority: P3
Reporter: Charlotte Whitt Assignee: Charlotte Whitt
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Issue links:
Defines
is defined by UIIN-2207 Do not allow item deletion if an open... Open
is defined by UXPROD-3799 Do not allow item deletion if an open... Open
is defined by UXPROD-3550 Implement support for loans where ite... Draft
Epic Link: Inventory
Development Team: Prokopovych
PO Rank: 0
RCA Group: TBD

 Description   

Current situation or problem:
New work on Fee/fines and item states as claimed returned etc. were not present when first iteration of inventory's check for item dependency was implemented 2 years ago. Right now, patrons with appropriate permissions can delete item records in Inventory, with a dependency checks on certain transactions (see UIIN-534 Closed ). This feature is about covering the implementation of dependency checks for fee/fines, loan statuses etc.

Usecase:
An item may have an associated unpaid or unresolved fee/fine even if the item is available and/or does not have an active loan. This occurs with overdue or overdue recall fines, where items can circulate to multiple users and accrue fines without ever becoming lost. So the dependency check must actively check fine records, not just item statuses like 'declared lost' or 'aged to lost'.

In scope

  • Do not allow item deletion if an account record, tied to the item, exists with an "open" status - this indicates that money is still owed to the library
  • Do not allow item deletion if

Out of scope

Use case(s)

Proposed solution/stories

Links to additional info

Questions

  • Do libraries want a warning even if all of the associated accounts are closed? It doesn't appear to warn for closed requests or closed loans, though this use case is arguably different because money is involved.
  • Are there libraries that would never want to delete an item if it has any fine history? That doesn't seem tenable, but they may be out there.
  • Are there libraries who would want to be able to configure a time check? E.g., don't allow deletion, even if the fine is closed, unless the fine is more than ___ years old? Or is the information still retained on the fine record enough to account for any record retention needs?

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:34:53 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.