2020-11-19 Resource Management Meeting Notes

Minute taker?

@Jesse Lambertson

Announcements/Updates

• Product Council meeting 2020-11-19

• No meeting November 27

@Kristin Martin

• update from product council:

  • successful Honeysuckle bugfest

  • goldenrod had some challenges

  • Q: How might the SIG use their time before bugfest to know the system better

  • Some testing was done that showed testers did not understand a feature and thus thought something was broken

  • Honeysuckle went much better

  • Hoping to bring together the testing and review before the release happens to better understand what is being developed.

    • question of how to integrate this testing with the release more closely

  • Dennis B. ref: expense class example of testing in thunderjet

    • scratch environments

  • just need more time to explore and experiment to track and get to know what is happening

  • Different institutions have expectations from the system's behaviour

  • data volume is also not quite as close to reality as it is in bugfest (but this might cause an issue)

  • There is often a difference between the testing actions vs the exploratory actions that we need to better understand the changes (and this testing should be done earlier)

  • from chat (All hot fixes are verified in the Bugfest Honeysuckle)

  • Jason Kovari also updated the PC on the Entity Management proposal that group was working on

    • https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/display/MM/Entities+App%3A+Vision

Date stamp to the interfaces section of the Organizations app

@Dennis Bridges

• In the organizations app, when looking at the credentials, the date-stamp is viewable

• also, suggested to date-stamp notes

• Dennis, asking if it is about date-stamping when a PW was changed (to keep PWs current and changing)

• from the chat, Owen S (I think the current situation is that the Interface has a last updated timestamp, but there isn’t a separate timestamp for credentials)

• from Abigail from chat (weird thing I noticed yesterday--the URI field doesn't link from the Organizations record, but it *does* link from the Organizations drop down in Licenses)

• from Owen S in chat (In Agreements and Licenses we use the URI to hyperlink the Interface name)

• Dennis asks if the username would be changing, but mostly this is about PWs) - although sometimes an e-mail needs to be changed

• date-stamp + number of days old (suggestion from am attendee)

• Owen S in chat (I’m also interested in the number of “last updated” dates that people are asking for - I’m not sure that adding all of these to the view panes in the UI is a good way of going)

• Dennis, links this conversation to generally tracking changes (who did when when)

• Emma R (wants to focus on date of updating PWs)

• Dennis suggests that in this situation it might be useful to really focus on date-stamping PW changes

• Dennis thinks he has enough information to start an issue with this (to bring back and review as a group once some progress has been made)

• Asking whether addresses might also need a date-stamp?

  • Sara suggests some date-stamping for payments made to vendors could be useful

  • wants to check payment remittance addresses (to verify the current address is listed in invoices)

  • some addresses don't change, but they might

• asks whether capturing an expiry date for PWs might be useful

• Conversation about security questions and where those questions might be stored (team password management?)

• Suggestion an integration with PW management would be great (even after suggesting some better integrations with external document cloud storage like Box or google drive)

Features that need RM SIG Review

Maintaining relationship between apps when moving a holdings/item:

UXPROD-1647: Theme: Ability to maintain relationships between other apps when holdings/items are movedIn ProgressPreview

@Dennis Bridges

Issues that need RM SIG review.

• ability to manage relationships between other apps when holdings/items are moved:

  • Is the expectation that the order info is to be updated to reflect current situation in inventory

  • question from chat (What are the scenarios where items are moved between instances?)

  • Mostly about ongoing orders

  • want to prevent errors

  • say, changing an order to online only, but that relationship and history will want to be kept to keep the history together (say, or payments) <unless a new order is created, while the existing one is closed>

  • also edition changes

  • plan for showing order info in item records (UX prod 1995)

  • should info be display only (UX prod 1925)

  • keep holdings UUID in the POL, which allows for some kind of relationship to be maintained even if an item does not exist

  • Orders has the reference

    • displayed in an accordion

    • not synced, but display-only from where it is actually stored

  • the internal linking vs populating info from one app to another

    • we won't necessarily want that editable or stored, but displayed and linked

  • Dennis B (example)

    • looking at a new order

    • to show links between orders and items

    • IN inventory, one can move holdings and items

    • if a holding is moved, the order still links to the instance, the pieces link to the items, but after the demo, the PO is split across 2 Instances

    • In many cases though, an empty instance record would be deleted

    • example of Serial title changes, thus a new record should have been created, but was not brought in, then barcodes will need to be moved to the new title when the new record comes in

    • Charlotte asks: how to we expect the system at large to work?

    • question from chat (What does moving represent though? Is it just a reorganisation of system pointers? )

    • also from chat (Or is there a real world “move” that we are reflecting)

  • We are providing a way to update the connection from the POL to a new instance, but it is a manual process at the moment.

  • You can change the instance link at the POL, and the system will save and close. The system will ask, do you want to move all of the related items, or do you want to manage them individually?

    • So for old orders, where you are splitting off some of the items, you might leave some items on the previous instance

    • From Owen: I think that description is important  - but it speaks to a user story like “given an item was the result of an order I want to be able to be able to easily find which order resulted in the acquisition of that item. Unfortunately in Folio we don’t get referential integrity between data separate apps without additional work"

    • We need to look at the use cases for moving holdings and items - we can create a spreadsheet of use cases.