...
Question | Status | Conclusion | Comments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Can we limit to 0xx and 9xx fields? |
| Probably OK | Devs need to confirm if MARC-MARC matching capabilities can be expanded, e.g. 924$a to 924$a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Any different considerations if the match-from and/or match-to field is repeatable? |
| so long as matches to single instance, holdings, or item, should be able to update | From: If copies ordered at the same time, but on separate POLs (for different acq units or locations) To: Instance linked to multiple orders, Holdings linked to multiple orders Is an item ever linked to multiple orders? A-M asking on Acq channel Needs to try each of the froms (if multiples) Needs to try each of the tos (if multiples) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Confirm appropriate test cases for E-to-E automated tests |
| See use cases above Test 1: POL, Instance source = FOLIO, update all record types Test 2: POL, Instance source = MARC, update all record types Test 3: VRN, Instance source = FOLIO, update all record types Test 4: VRN, Instance source = MARC, update all record types Add negative test cases - no matches or multiple matches | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Do we need to break out vendor ref number types, like we do for Identifiers? |
| For now, do not break out the different vendor ref number types; if use case arises in the future, consider breaking out, similar to how the Instance identifiers are broken out | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Can we remove some unused match data elements? |
| Leave for now; as users test more of the match elements in the future, correct or amend on a case-by-case basis, Besides, that enlarges the scope of this feature | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Match on POLs with which statuses? |
| Per Christie, would want to be able to choose the POL status for successful matches Per Raegan, this is not a scenario that comes up for them | Open = OK to match Pending = DO NOT MATCH Closed = Maybe sometimesDO NOT MATCH (no use case identified yet) If multiple are matched (like the same VRN in Law and Main order, leading to the same Instance, but different holdings and items), stop if multiple matches. Or maybe use location as a submatch to get to the right holdings/item Christie: would be rare to want to match based on a closed PO, especially if it has cataloging implications and could result in accidental overlay of previous cataloging. Same for Jennifer E, Leeda, Dung-Lan A-M to talk with Devs on Friday - would it be more complexity to take status into account when matching? a little more, but infrastructure already there Maybe have 4 matching options POL with status = Open POL with status = Open or Closed VRN with status = Open VRN with status = Open or Closed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| What about multiple copies? |
| For now, we can only do 1 instance/holdings/item update until the multiples feature is developed
| Right now, can only create single instance, holdings, item from an incoming MARC Bib. What happens if you're trying to updating multiple holdings or items from the same MARC Bib (if you have multiple holdings/items HRIDs) (find the feature for updating multiples from the same MARC Bib) Write a couple tests to see what happens when trying to update more than 1 item or holdings from the same MARC Bib System Jira | serverId | 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc | key | UXPROD-2741 | |
Basic workflow
Matching on POL (only accounts for single Instance/Holdings/Item for now)
...
Question | Status | Conclusion | Comments | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What changes are needed to the UI matching screen? |
| Add POL and VRN options for each Inventory record type | |||||||||||
| Any different considerations if the match-from and/or match-to field is repeatable? |
| ||||||||||||
| Where do we pull the POL and VRN from, and how are they linked to the appropriate instances, holdings, items? |
| Pull POL or VRN from the MARC field/subfield designated in the match profile | |||||||||||
| If we only wanted to match on POLs or VRNs for orders that are Open (and maybe Closed), but NOT Pending, would that be an issues? (we already use similar logic for EDIFACT invoice matching between Invoice line and POL/VRN) |
| No, not an issue | POs with Ongoing status (in receipt or payment) are included with Open Order status is at the PO level, but POL/VRN are at the POL level. May need to hit a composite endpoint to get the number and the status. Per Siarhei H, can use cross-index query to also find the status of a POL | ||||||||||
| E-to-E automated tests; how many, and happy path only, or negative too? |
|
|
...