Magda 02:31
I would ask everyone who is present today to add your name to the attendees' list. That helps later on when we discuss things we discussed in the past. A quick reminder that we have a Bulk Edit session in Hamburg on Wednesday, August 31, at 4 pm Central European Time, it's 10 am. Eastern Time. It will be a Hybrid meeting, which means it's for in-person and Zoom attendees. And the last housekeeping item is we are not going to have a meeting on September 6th, I will be on vacation, so I will not be available. If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding WOLFCon, please feel free to reach out to me anytime, unless you want to speak up now and say something to everyone.
Magda 06:09
Let's dive into the Morning Glory bugfest tickets. As you see, the list is significantly shorter than last time; we have three remaining stories. Two of them are in code review. One is in progress. All of them are related to making MOD data export horizontal scaling. And the issue is not only for Bulk Edit but also for other modules that use it for exporting reports, e.g., EDIFACT exports, eHoldings exports, Circulation log, and Bursar information. All of them are using this module. So the work we put in here will benefit others as well. The other good news is that we were able to resolve the issue where once the Bulk Edit completes, the confirmation banner needed to be manually refreshed to provide the number of records affected or updated. This is done. We are not able to recreate it anymore. So it's good news. The links to the performance tests are here, they have not changed since the last meeting, and we will definitely be doing more tests once those three stories regarding horizontal scaling are addressed, and we are sure how the system behaves when we have more than one module available. And the questions?
Erin 08:16
So the other two things that are listed as known issues, it looks like we're going to talk about one of them, the other is going to be worked in no Nolana?
Magda 08:25
So the first, 122, will be worked on in Nolana.
- UIBULKED-122 - Implement logic for record counts when items bulk edit is triggered by holdings id
The second one, 203, is in progress now. The developer is looking into it. If ,we find a solution for this and we can squeeze it into Morning Glory then we will include it there. The issue occurs when you try to upload more than 3000 user records, which if this is the case and we we are not able to fix it in Morning Glory, I still feel it's okay if we move it to Nolana. I will know more about that at our next meeting.
- MODEXPW-203 - "Fail to upload file" error with large amount of Users barcodes
In terms of the development status, if we look at the SCRAM board, in addition to the bugs that we are addressing from bugfest, the team is also working on the backend functionality for Nolana so that UI work can start in the sprint that started yesterday. So we will be addressing issues in Nolana. The links are here if anyone wants to review them. if you have questions please let me know.
Magda 10:30
So I would like to move to the expected behavior for the bulk edits-122. I have slides here and I can also demonstrate the behavior if this is not clear. So what is happening right now, is that if we upload a file with 25 holding records, and out of those 25 Holdings, only 20 holdings find a match, there are 5 errors with no matches. So does this result screen make sense?
Erin 13:03
So what can we control here? Can we add like a blue eye and show information? What are we able to do to try and provide clarity?
Magda 13:22
Just tell me what you think would make sense. And then I can discuss this with the developers.
Unknown Speaker 13Erin 13:33
right? So like Lita chimed in in the chat, and I definitely think more people should talk. But you know, it's, that's valid, right? You frequently would have you know, this isUnknown Speaker 13Y
Lita 13:43
This is a case where you're we are used to seeing when you're working with holding IDs. And in this case, you want to edit all the items associated with those holding IDs, some . Some of those holdings are going to have more than one item.
Unknown Speaker 14Magda 14:02
Yes. And we will have the same behavior . This is not only the behavior for editing item records with holdings, we will have the same behavior if we start, for example, editing codings if we start, for example, editing holdings by providing instance IDs, or there . There are many other use cases for this. So I just want us to come up with a solution or approach that would make sense so that it will not be confusing for the user shakey . Bob has his hand raised.
Unknown Speaker 14Bob 14:34
Yeah, I just want to be sure I understand what the confusion is, is it because the user knows that they loaded 20 and they see the number 24?
Unknown Speaker 14:45
No, the user knows they loaded 2545 and
Unknown Speaker 14:53
2025 all the IDs
Unknown Speaker 14:59
were returned. Why four items?
Unknown Speaker 15:01
Yes. So 2025 Holdings IDs, your submitted 25 Holdings IDs?
Unknown Speaker 15:08
I thought we said 20.
Unknown Speaker 15:09
I thought you said 20. Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 15:11
yes, it said 20. Because five of them five of those 25. Were invalid. So for those holdings IDs that you This is the list of 25 Holdings. I am I just added a few invalid IDs, to the to, to show you the behavior because it may happen, you may submit the value of the holdings ID that does not exist. So, you submitted the list of 25 Holdings IDs, then, so, we know that out of those 25, holdings IDs, five are invalid. So there is no record for those holdings IDs in the database. For those that were valid for those remaining 20, there were 24 item records associated with them. So I get it.
Unknown Speaker 16:27
So I have my first suggestion is rather than using the word records, can we use the name of the identifier? Or say the name, you know, holding 24? Or the name of the thing? We're actually talking about 24 item records 24. And then 24, item records matched five holdings UU IDs errored, or had errors or something like that. Yeah, but uh huh.
Unknown Speaker 17:01
I don't really have a problem with this top screen, because I can see here in the column that says barcode, if I have a barcode, I'm on an item. The I feel good about having the 24 when I would start to worry is if I have fewer numbers, which may have been I submitted,
Unknown Speaker 17:25
which may happen as well, because if out of those 20 Holdings, there were some holdings that did not have associated items may happen, then you will, you may end up sending 20 Holdings Record and getting on the item 18 items, for example.
Unknown Speaker 17:50
Wait, so I think adding the the name of the type of the record in front of record, and the type of the identifier in front of error would help.
Unknown Speaker 18:01
Okay, so the top level would be 24 items, item records much. Yep. And on the errors, we will have 29 entries and I need to investigate how did we get to the number 28 To be honest 29 Because the 29 is nowhere to be found here. But this is the bug on the technical side
Unknown Speaker 18:33
29 Is 24 item records plus five holding errors,
Unknown Speaker 18:38
which is not the case. Well it is does map here but this is not working in this case. So 24 and much item records and much 2024 item
Unknown Speaker 18:55
records matched. And then you can say five air five holdings you UID errors or? Or yeah, I don't know the best way to handle like plural versus singular there. I'm sure there's guidance somewhere about it. But
Unknown Speaker 19:15
can I would it be okay holdings identifiers errs?
Unknown Speaker 19:21
Well, I think it depends on on, I guess I would think it would be easy just to use the name of the identifier but I don't have a strong opinion about it. Anybody else does please speak up?
Unknown Speaker 19:34
On the left, you're using the term holdings UU IDs.
Unknown Speaker 19:38
So you would like to you would like to have the name Preserve? Correct. I
Unknown Speaker 19:44
just I just think it would make sense in context. It looks like Christie has her hand up Christy. Yes. Um,
Unknown Speaker 19:56
so I guess my question would be are the errors always going to be related to the holdings UU IDs, because I can imagine that there is a holdings with an item and there was an error with the item
Unknown Speaker 20:13
on this screen. This is the landing page. Once you have submitted here, you will see all the errors that occurred during the matching provided IDs.
Unknown Speaker 20:28
So it will only be the that will only be the holding Gu ID that is,
Unknown Speaker 20:35
in this case, the errors that are here will that sorry, the IDS you have provided don't match.
Unknown Speaker 20:44
So my might well my other question is, and I realized that I missed out on a big chunk of this working group while we went live. But so what happens if you have a, you know, a holdings ID, and it's got 10 items, but only nine items show up? Because one of them had an error? Would you even know about that?
Unknown Speaker 21:09
This is a very good question. And why do you think would not? Why do you think that one of those shouldn't, would not be would not show up?
Unknown Speaker 21:25
That's like, a good question.
Unknown Speaker 21:27
Because all that's happening here is you're giving, you're saying, here's the records, I want, by the holding of your ID, and fully OSHA just return all of the item records that are on these holding UU IDs.
Unknown Speaker 21:40
But this is a good question. So for example, if, let's say bark, one of the item records, has some invalid data that prevents rendering it in the UI. Christy, is this the scenario you have in mind?
Unknown Speaker 22:02
That I actually I, you know, I didn't really have a specific scenario in mind. I just, I was thinking about this from a quality control standpoint and a user and how do I know that? How am I going to confirm that, you know, I'm changing everything I expected to change. And, and in looking at the errors, you know, I would be really surprised if we'd never have that happen. And folio. And this scenario that you gave is actually a really good one, because we're finding, you know, from migrating from one, you know, version to another, that some of our data that we migrated with is just not standing the test of time. So I think it's perfectly reasonable that we have items out there with data that is going to go stale and no longer be valid in the system
Unknown Speaker 22:55
or current or for some more is corrupted
Unknown Speaker 22:58
for some reason. Exactly. And you know, what happens in that scenario? And I would expect it to show in errors that, you know, there was one record that we couldn't pull for whatever reason. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 23:16
So in this case, let's say we have one item, one item that did not show up. So we would let's say we add here, we would add here, a barcode and the comment, data corrupted. And then you will need to know which one is the value for holdings and which one is the value? Well, you
Unknown Speaker 23:44
wouldn't presume you could presume and Christi scenario, you might not even get a barcode back.
Unknown Speaker 23:49
So but you will have the let's say I can you ID
Unknown Speaker 23:56
My question is how is how does polkadot know? How many hold it how many items it expects to get?
Unknown Speaker 24:09
But it doesn't know about it? No, just gives you this is what I found for what they gave me. Like when we work with identifiers, we just assume this is it. We can track and we track the errors that occur in the process. It will be kind of difficult to recreate this issue with the data. But let's come back to this at some point. I see Bob has his hand.
Unknown Speaker 24:47
I just have a quick question. So what's happening down below under the errors is a simple match on the the UID in the spreadsheet to the UID is in the system. So? So no items are really being checked. It's just a simple comparison. So, so it doesn't come into play in terms of this error message down here, right?
Unknown Speaker 25:19
Yes, but
Unknown Speaker 25:22
it may come into play up above when we're trying to display the items. But it won't even do that, because it's it didn't, I'm sorry, yeah, so it makes the match. And there's five items attached to the holdings. And he tries to display it in the upper section here, you might get an error, right? If it's corrupted or whatever way at all.
Unknown Speaker 25:48
So there is an item display and airing because what is here, the records much aren't the items, those in the TreeView, those are the items, those are not the holdings. And, and please remember that for identifiers, we don't see all matches here, we see only top 10, top 10. But when the user save all matches locally, then the when then those Magda 14:45 - Magda clarified again what the issue is with the displayed results.
Erin 16:27
So I have my first suggestion is rather than using the word records, can we use the name of the identifier? Or say the name of the thing we're actually talking about, e.g., 24 item records 24 or 24 item records matched and five holdings UU IDs errored, or had errors.
Lita 17:01
I don't really have a problem with this top screen, because I can see here in the column that says barcode, if I have a barcode, I'm on an item. I would start to worry is if I have fewer numbers than I submitted.
Magda 17:25
This may happen as well, because if out of those 20 holdings, there were some holdings that did not have associated items, then you may end up say, 18 items, for example.
Erin 17:50
So I think adding the name of the record type in front of "record," and the type of the identifier in front of "error" would help.
Magda 18:01
Okay, so the top level would be 24 items records match. And on the errors, we will have 29 entries, and I need to investigate how we got to the number 29, to be honest because 29 is nowhere to be found here. But this is the bug on the technical side.
Erin 18:55
24 item records matched. And then you can say five UID errors. Or, yeah, I don't know the best way to handle plural versus singular there. I'm sure there's guidance somewhere about it.
Magda 19:15
Would it be okay as holdings identifiers errors?
Rein 19:21
I thought it would be easy just to use the name of the identifier, but I don't have a strong opinion about it. If anybody else does, please speak up.
Bob 19:34
On the left, you're using the term holdings UU IDs.
Magda 19:38
So you would like to preserve this naming? Correct?
Erin 19:44
I just think it would make sense in context. It looks like Christie has her hand up.
Christie 19:56
My question would be, are the errors always going to be related to the holdings UU IDs, because I can imagine that there is a holdings with an item and there was an error with the item.
Magda 20:13
You will see all the errors that occurred while matching the provided IDs.
Christie 20:28
So it will only be the holding UUIDs there?
Magda 20:35
In this case, the errors that are here will be IDS you have provided that don't match.
Chrisie 20:44
So my other question is, what happens if you have a holdings ID and it's got 10 items, but only nine items show up because one of them had an error? Would you even know about that?
Magda 21:09
This is a very good question. And why do you think would not? Why do you think that one of those would not show up?
Christie 21:25
That's a good question.
Erin 21:27
All that's happening here is you're giving a set of holdings record IDs, and then it should just return all of the item records that are on these holding UUIDs.
Magda 21:40
But this is a good question. So for example, if, let's say one of the item records, has some invalid data that prevents rendering it in the UI. Christy, is this the scenario you have in mind?
Christie 22:02
I didn't really have a specific scenario in mind. I was thinking about this from a quality control standpoint. How will I confirm that I'm changing everything I expected to change? And, looking at the errors, I would be really surprised if we'd never have that happen. And this scenario you gave is actually a really good one because we're finding that some of the data we migrated with is just not standing the test of time as we migrate from one version to another. So I think it's perfectly reasonable that we have items out there with data that will go stale and no longer be valid in the system or is corrupted for some reason. And you know, what happens in that scenario? And I would expect it to show in errors that, you know, there was one record that we couldn't pull for whatever reason.
Magda 23:16
So, in this case, let's say we have one item that did not show up. So we would add here a barcode and the comment, data corrupted. And then, you will need to know which is the value for holdings and which is the value.
Unknown Speaker 23:44
In Christie's scenario, you might not even get a barcode back.
Magda 23:49
But you will have the UUID.
Erin 23:56
My question is how does Bulk Edit know how many items it expects to get?
Magda 24:09
It doesn't know. It just gives you this is what it found for what it was given. We can track the errors that occur in the process. It will be kind of difficult to recreate this issue with the data. But let's come back to this at some point.
Bob 24:47
I just have a quick question. So what's happening down below under the errors is a simple match on the the UID in the spreadsheet to the UUIDs in the system. So no items are really being checked. It's just a simple comparison. So, it doesn't come into play regarding this error message down here, right?
Unknown Speaker 25:19
Yes, but
Unknown Speaker 25:22
it may come into play up above when we're trying to display the items. But it won't even do that, because it's it didn't, I'm sorry, yeah, so it makes the match. And there's five items attached to the holdings. And he tries to display it in the upper section here, you might get an error, right? If it's corrupted or whatever way at all.
Magda 25:48
When the user saves all matches locally, if there is a problem with one of those records, that may cause a problem down the road, . I would like to table this and come back to this conversation. Our let me think about this. For now, obviously, we are will not going to handle this case, ; the record will be excluded . Unless unless the problem is such that will prevent users from saving the matching fundsmatches found. The files of the matching records locally. Let , let me think about this. And we'll I will come back to this group. But this was a good good point. ChristyChristie.
Unknown Speaker 27:23
Can I just add one, one thing I thought of, in terms of the messages about the different record numbers that are coming back? just occurred to me it may be a single box with multiple lines describing the results in one place might might read better?
Unknown Speaker 27:46
Can you could you repeat? A so instead of the we are talking about errors part, right? So you're suggesting that instead of one line to make it multi line or
Unknown Speaker 28:00
rather than I'm not saying this is just an idea that occurred to me to have single box somewhere in this maybe on the left? That is reporting the results of every type of record that came back the errors, and you know, the different verbiage for each results category, all in one place. So you're not scanning in different places for to make sense of the numbers. Just one idea.
Unknown Speaker 28:36
Okay, we can talk about this too. My understanding is that if everything goes fine, if there are no errors, and you see this top 24 This is all you really need. And when there are errors, you have them in one place and then it's followed by what went wrong. But I put this also on the list of things to discuss how make there's a little bit more prominent or the reporting more prominent. Are we any comments in the in the chat that I need that we would like to talk before we move to the next part? When we download a CSV of the preview file, do we get CSV with only the columns chosen? We are all columns. We got the whole record so
Unknown Speaker 29:36
that I know that's a bit of a non sequitur but it leads into our agenda items further down.
Unknown Speaker 29:44
So we you got everything in CSV format, whatever is in the in the item record. Okay, I can show you some example. polls, I believe I'm clicking here. So let me open up some examples here. So those are the user records and human video item record that I'm doing in that quick way of opening it in Excel. This is not the most elegant way. But I just wanted to show you the data quickly. So you see you have IDs, you have H IDs, holdings, you have the title, that is part of the record. And all the things that are part of the of the item record. Great, thank you.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
