Date
...
Functional Area | Product Owner | Planned Release (if known) | Decision Reached | Reasoning | Link to supporting materials | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| e.g. loans, fees/fines | Name | e.g. Q4 2018, Q1 2019 | Clearly stated decision |
| e.g. mock-up, JIRA issue | |
| Loans | Emma Boettcher | Q2 2020 | Don't automatically put in link to loan in user record note for a claimed returned item unless there is a tenant-level way to configure those links not being added | GDPR compliance | ||
Notes
Darcy presents suggestion for notice tokens
fee/fine screen detail page displays more information than fee/fine record, should addtional additional information be also available for fee/fine notices?
can be pulled in via itemID/loanID
does it make sense to offer full set of tokens?
there could be more information on the notice than on the detail page, is this odd?
quick access to item record and loan details is possible from the detail page
often title only may not fully identify item to patron, full call number information, enumeration, volume etc (all existing item tokens) should be available for notice tokens
is there a way to state that an overdue fine was caused by someone recalling the item? it should be
fee/fine tokens need to be divided in charges and actions
date and dateTime are both needed
is it possible to break up dateTime into date and time? dateTime is already a token for other processes and should be kept this way
additionalInfo is info field from manual charges, there is not additional info on automated fees at this time
feeAction.amount and feeAction.remainingAmount refers to the latest balance
multiple charge notices won't be available first, but multiple action notices will
...