2024-2-14 Data Import Subgroup meeting
Recordings are posted Here (2022+) and Here (pre-2022) Slack channel for Q&A, discussion between meetings
Requirements details Here Additional discussion topics in Subgroup parking lot
Attendees: Robert Pleshar, Lynne Fors, Taylor Smith, Jennifer Eustis, Yael Hod, Aaron Neslin, Peter Martinez, Ryan Taylor, Autumn Faulkner, Corrie Hutchinson (Unlicensed), Raegan Wiechert, Sara Colglazier, Kim, Tess Amram
Notetaker: Jennifer Eustis, Corrie Hutchinson, Christie Thomas
Links:
- Data Import Topic Tracker
- Poppy import planning dashboard
- Poppy timeline
- Quesnelia import planning dashboard
- Quesnelia timeline
- Folijet Current Development Board
- Folijet (Data import) Bug Dashboard
Agenda:
Topic | Who | Meeting Notes | Related Jira | Decisions and Actions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Announcements | Ryan | CSP #1 has been released.
Discussion notes: RT: Poppy CSP 1 is out. release notes and dashboard are linked above. Unlinking of action profiles - MODDICONV-361Getting issue details... STATUS is addressed in this CSP. Q: If Poppy has not been installed will this eliminate the problem only after migration? RT: (Detailed discussion with the next section.) There are two different situations: unlinking of actions during migration and then unlinking of action profiles as a part of editing profile workflows. Correcting the migration issue is a different Jira, - MODDICONV-365Getting issue details... STATUS , which is in code review now and will be included in CSP 2. CSP 2 will be released as soon as possible. CSP 1 went ahead because there were enough fixes ready to go to make it worthwhile to move forward with CSP 1. It would be idea to wait to migrate to Poppy until CSP 2 to make sure the migration issue is correct. | N/A | |
Bug Review: MODDATAIMP-897 - Adding MARC modifications to single record overlay doesn't respect field protections
| Ryan/Jennifer/All | Discussion notes: RT: How are the protections working and how are they expected to work? Example from Jennifer Eustis: Use Case: Export, Transform, Load. Import profile includes a marc modification to delete fields, such Matches on 999 ff $i. Ideal to have a marc modification to remove unwanted marc fields: 029, 983, etc. Then a match on instance and update of instance. Marc modification at the end of the record results in marc modification. See screenshot of profile. Comments that marc modifications was implemented with an expectation that marc modifications should be at the beginning of the job and should act on the incoming record. That is true, but past conversations in data import subgroup drew out two use cases: 1 to modify an incoming record before any actions are taken and 2) to modify the final srs record after all of the actions are taken. (Delete 9xx data after it is used to update the holdings and item, for example.) General experience right now is that marc modifications are working as expected with creates, but is not working or working but with corruption (such as the deletion of protected fields) on updates. RT: Is part of the problem how we are approaching updates vs modifications? Updates are designed to work with FOLIO records and modifications are designed to work on incoming records. Should updates have the same potential actions as marc modifications applying the logic to the updated record? Right now dependencies between srs and instance and the explicit nature of the updates on instance vs marc is problematic. It is difficult to understand what is happening with updates. Process is to put them anywhere to see where they work. Whether we are updating srs, instance or both we should be able to do the same thing. RT: You will see different behavior from marc modifications depending on its placement in the profile. Need to a deeper dive into how the behavior changes dependent on placement. This would be a good candidate for the functionality / documentation audit. If development dives into this and the DI lab group dives into this, we could then come together to identify the best way forward. | ||
Missing Action Profiles in Job Profile after Poppy migration: As called out in Poppy Release Notes, there is a known issue that's been observed in which some links to reusable Action Profiles might be missing from Job Profiles after Poppy migration. Release notes recommend the following:
Recommended script will provide list of Action profiles to help users manually recreate any affected Job profiles. | All | Previous notes from 2/7:
|
-
MODDICONV-361Getting issue details...
STATUS
Issue specific to unlinking of Action profiles when used by multiple Job profiles after Poppy migration. Ticket now closed and included within Poppy CSP #1.
-
MODDICONV-365Getting issue details...
STATUS
| |
Partial Matching: | Subject raised by Yael Hod | Previous notes from 1/31: | Ryan will :
| |
Documentation: The group has identified a need for new, enhanced, or reorganized documentation around Data Import.
| All | Not discussed at the 1/31/ meeting Previous notes from 1/24 meeting: | N/A |
|
De-duplication: Continue conversation from previous session to clarify what we expect from de-duplication of field values when a record is loaded into FOLIO via Data Import. | All | Not discussed at the 1/31 meeting. Previous notes from 1/24 meeting: | MODDATAIMP-879: Data Import removes duplicate 856s in SRS |
|
Upcoming meetings/agenda topics:
Chat: