Review and discuss "Date ordered" behavior when user unopen and reopen orders. Dennis will work on a story for the approval date that we can approve as a group. 8/24
Discuss the ability to export country as name rather then code in the voucher export. Defer topic till December.
Discussion items
Time
Item
Who
Notes
2 min. after
Follow up from Friday EDIFACT Invoicing
Ann-Marie Breaux
On Friday looked at importing EDIFACT invoices. New functionality as of Juniper is being able to look up POL that invoice line should have matched to and associate the POL with the invoice line after the data has been imported.
Should streamline EDIFACT invoicing
3 min. after
Date Orders Discussion
Dennis Bridges
Are approval date and date ordered the same thing?
Date ordered not showing on PO at moment, but represents day that the order transitioned from pending to open.
Will be displaying in the near future.
Depending on workflow, it is possible that these are the same or different.
If in Settings you have that order approval must happen before opening, then you may have different dates.
Currently in BugFest Juniper approval date does update when order is unopened and reopened.
Will not be asked to approve again, but are updating the approval date when you open the order again.
Does not matter whether you have setting active or not which is problematic.
Virginia Martin - Confusing when you have to unopen an order to edit it. For ongoing orders there are some fields that can’t be edited while the order is open. Have to unopen and then reopen. Pretty typical for ongoing orders, as things may change about them over time. Could some of this be addressed by taking a look at what fields are editable on an open and approved order so that users are not forced to unopen and reopen?
Dennis - For sure, over time we are unlocking more and more of these fields. Are you saying that you do expect the date to be updated? The problem is you have to unopen and reopen for things you shouldn't have to?
Virginia – Both. May or may not want approval date to be updated depending on changes.
Dennis – Seems like there are scenarios where you should have to reapprove, but there are other edits you should be able to make without having to approve. Either need to find all the things that fit into that category or need some way of managing whether you are reapproving when you unopen an order.
Virginia – Would really like to not have to unopen an order to edit.
Dennis – Partly because we have not had the capacity to build the logic for this yet. We’ll definitely address those things over time.
With respect to managing these dates if you do unopen, should it just be more clear that you are going to be updating the approval or not? Currently system does not tell you this. Should we have some sort of confirmation that says update the approval or don’t? Is it worth doing that?
Are there edits that you do expect to have to unopen an order for that would not require approval?
Virginia – Yes. But we are opening and approving at the same time. Common example is changing the vendor of the order.
Sara – When you have it separated you have it separated on purpose, but when you have the two linked you're eliminating that. Always having those two dates in sync kind of invalidates having two dates. You can’t determine when the first approval happened. Better if the one had a meaning by staying static.
Dennis – So we might add a re-approval function for those that are relying on that approval step. Just thinking out loud.
Bill Verner – Do institutions who are planning to use approval process as separate have this process as part of their current system and how is this problem addressed if it is a problem?
No response. Seems not to have been any institutions who use this on the call.
Some folks have found this to be problematic. Came up initially around integration of GOBI and FOLIO.
Possible that your order matches up to the wrong instance. E.g. print instead of electronic.
Discussed adding a simple setting to turn off instance matching in the immediate future.
Described as “Enable instance matching”
Default would be active.
Currently this logic is on and always on.
Possibly in the future will be allowed to customize the matching behavior.
Is anyone opposed to having this be phrased as “disable instance matching”?
By default would be unchecked.
Virginia - As long as you can control it, doesn't seem like it matters.
From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone: 12:33 PM
agree with Virginia!
From Peter Sbrzesny to Everyone: 12:33 PM
+1
From Bob Scheier (Holy Cross) to Everyone: 12:33 PM
Seems more logical
From Suzanne Mangrum to Everyone: 12:34 PM
How far down the road will the mapping options be discussed? I'm just curious.
Dennis – That’s a good question. Need to get an outline feature created. Reality is it probably will not be discussed during this release cycle.
Sara Colglazier – Which release will have searching for HRID from instance records? Like if I go to inventory, I find the instance record I want to attach the PO to. Can I go to POL, bring up popup, plunk it in and bring up title?
Available in BugFest Juniper, but not Iris.
40 min. after
Voucher Export File Outputs Country Code
Dennis Bridges
Recently had question about Voucher export file and that it currently outputs the country code as an abbreviation.
Outputting country code might be problematic for some workflows, such as mailing checks to international vendors.
Post office often requires a country's name to be written out in full.
Folks on this call who have had issues with format of data as output?
No response.
Virginia – At Duke, not sure, Julie might know. Planning on using voucher files. Believe what’s more important for us is the vendor code, which AP will use to identify vendor and address.
From Julie Stauffer to Everyone: 12:43 PM
Sorry - person who could answer for our institution is not on the call today
From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone: 12:43 PM
Same for us like at Duke
Dennis – Also output currency as the code.
No other folks for which this is a major concern?
Is there anyone who knows whether it would be problematic to have the country written instead of the country code?
Sara – Could imagine that if I was a European institution could be an issue. Could see that the currency and country could be much more important to them than us.
From Peter Sbrzesny to Everyone: 12:45 PM
Our financial system requires country code and currency Code at the moment.
From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone: 12:45 PM
In Regensburg, we would just pay invoices in EUR via Vouchers.
45 min. after
Anything else?
From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone: 12:45 PM
Wondering which release will enable/display info in the Acquisitions accordion under Inventory instance holdings as my staff is asking about it?
In inventory on holdings could click and it would take you to acquisitions PO.
Releasing with Kiwi, did not quite make the Juniper release.
Almost ready for user acceptance testing. Just a few more stories before that can begin.
Ann-Marie - Counting on this for data import. Data import needs POL # associated with related instance, holdings, and items so we can do matching for shelf ready updates.
Sara – Wasn’t there also at some point where we will be able to see in the POL if it is linked to an agreement?
Dennis – Agreement line already appears on POL. Done through the Agreements app.
12:52 – Location now has a specific connection to the holdings.
Look at holdings you see an Acquisition accordion.
At the moment you will only see this on the holdings.
Separate feature for display on item.
No feature for display on instance.
Not meeting this Friday; will see everyone next Tuesday.
