2023-06-29 Resource Access Meeting Notes
Date
Recordings
Find all recordings here: https://recordings.openlibraryfoundation.org/folio/resource-access-sig/ (pw: folio-lsp)
Zoom
https://zoom.us/j/337279319 (pw: folio-lsp)
Attendees
Tracy Macpherson
Discussion Items:
Time | Item | Who | Description | Goals/Info/notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5min | Administrivia | WOLFCon Sessions Erin is still looking for folks to take over roles - please consider and reach out!
| ||
| 40 Min | Notices Continuation from Monday | julie.bickle | Present the (Poppy?) lastest notice development + ask a few questions on some things I have found:
| |
| 15Min | fee/fines | Tom via Slack: Q: and we can maybe chat about it today.. Im working on a workflow for fines that are rejected by our bursar's office. In order to move fines back to 'active' you have to 'refund' the fine.. Does this make sense or is it a gap.
| ||
| other topics | Thomas Trutt made the group arware of this Inventory bug |
.png?version=1&modificationDate=1686843903000&cacheVersion=1&api=v2&width=1022&height=250)
Meeting Notes
Administrivia:
- WOLFcon: 2 RA meetings: A general SIG Meeting and one for TLR
- Erin is still looking for someone to take over roles mentioned in the agenda, please reach out if you have questions
Notices (continuing the topic of 2023-6-15):
Multiple fees/fines for overdue items UXPROD-3999 (complete - no longer in progress)
1st scenario
- Bundling at the point of check in overdue items
- Trigger (overdue returned in the notice policy): At check-in: when an item is checked in that is overdue and fees/fines are generated in accordance to the settings in the respective overdue fine policy
- Notice: everything you write between the multiples tokens is duplicated
- All overdue fines that are created in one session are bundled into one notice
- Question Thomas: What happens if a session never ends. Julie keeps on testing to be 100 per cent sure and checked back with developers: The notice will definitely get send (sessions gets cancelled at a certain point)
- Breaking change (Julie will highlight in the release notes): Also if only one item with overdue fine is checked in you still need the the multiple tokens in your notice template
2nd scenario
- Bundling at the point of renewal of overdue items
- Trigger (overdue, renewed): renewal: when an item that is overdue is renewed and fees/fines are generated in accordance to the settings in the respective overdue fine policy
- If a bundle is wanted you need to trigger the renewal of the items that should be included into the bundle at the same time - you need to select the items you want to be renewed from the list of items.
- Trigger: renewal at the same time (not in the same session)
Julie: the decision was to stick to the behavior you can see on the screen and not to create an extra session somehow only for the bundling - The list of items that were successfully renewed is displayed and the items which are on this list get bundled
Julie noticed while testing that there is no information that a fine was generated (–> that would be a good enhancement) - Breaking change (Julie will highlight in the release notes): Also if only one item with overdue fine is checked in you still need the the multiple tokens in your notice template
Testing is possible in Snapshot – please reach out to Julie if you have questions or need help with the test set up
Fees/Fines:
Thomas is working on a workflow for fines that are rejected by bursar's office. In order to move fines back to 'active' you have to 'refund' the fine.
What happens: open fines are transferred to the bursar account (and closed thereby on patron account). Refund is used in case you need to re-open the fine. Refund transfers the fine back to patron's acount as an open fee/fine, but if you finally want to clear out the patron's account, it has to be waived.
The question to be discussed is if that does make sense or if it is a gap.
Julie also noticed this behavior in aged to lost
Discussion: There seems to be a problem with the terminology. In real life one expects refunding means that you are actually giving money back to the patron but folio handles it different:
If you haven´t paid a fee/fine yet you waive it (open fee/fine becomes a closed fee/fine)
If you have already paid (open fee/fine becomes a closed fee/fine) and you do a refund the closed fee/fine becomes an open fee/fine again. (You have to waive it if you want to close it again)
Functionality transfer in Folio:
Example: open fee/fine (Lisa’s account) – transfer (to bursar) – fee/fine closed on Lisa’s account
Functionality refund in Folio:
the fee/fine should not be closed any longer but be an open fee/fine again → Refund – closed fee/fine becomes an open fee/fine again on Lisa’s account
The solution might be a rephrasing that might make the actions clearer (keep the functionality as is but rename it).
Suggestions: re-open, transfer back, revert
Julie: we have to figure out in which places refund would have to be renamed or regrouped. So far:
- Action menu
- Circ log
- other places where the name pops up …
- For notices it would not be a big problem.
Other topics:
Thomas reports that there is a fix for the inventory bug mentioned in the agenda.
No agenda for the 6th July - if nothing pressing is coming up Jana will cancel the meeting.