| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|
| :02 | Housekeeping | Dung-Lan | - Next meeting is next Tuesday, Dec. 5th at 1 pm Eastern
- Checking in re: upcoming holiday break of scheduled SIG meetings
- Meet on Dec. 19th, Tues
- Dec. 22nd (Fri) & 26th (Tues.), Jan. 2nd (Tues.) cancelled
- Will resume meeting on 1/5
|
| :12 | PC Updates | Kristin Martin | - Upcoming: meeting whether we want an Entity Management SIG (November 30): agenda forthcoming
- Application formalization group (cross council) work has begun
- Make FOLIO more implementable
- Meeting weekly on Wednesdays at 1 PM Eastern Time
- Poppy Bugfest has concluded except for ECS (extended consortial support)
- Release date around the 18th
- Does not change timeline for Quesnalia right now
- Invite SIG conveners to meeting on 12/14
- Quarterly updates
- Oral report will be more question-based, e.g.:
- What is going well?
- What are you wondering about?
- What should be on Product Council's radar?
- If you have anything that you feel should be highlighted in Product Council meeting on 12/14, let Dung-Lan know.
|
| :19 | Implementer's Topics, #110 | Dennis Bridges | - Deleting acquisition units
- Only thing stopping users from deleting an acq unit is having users assigned to it. (If they have permissions).Â
- If associated with orders or other apps, can cause problems with other records once deleted.
- Bug
- Shouldn't be able to delete at all. Maybe deprecating is better?Â
- Created PO was then lost to user once acq unit was deleted.
- Might be that some of the restrictions are staying a place, in which case definitely a bug.
- Should we allow deletion?
- Check for records associated or deprecation (addition "Inactive" status) would work
|
| :30 | Implementer's Topics, #111 | Dennis Bridges | - Widgets in Dashboard for Acq Apps
- Martina - the Bienenvolk development team is starting to extend the Dashboard functionality to add an ACQ related widget
- E.g. - Show all items overdue, that I've ordered and haven't been delivered (precondition for claiming)
- Would make sense to have Owen on for discussion.Â
- Bringing specific use cases would be helpful in informing development
- Friday meeting agenda, probably in the new year
- Martina Schildt | VZG 12:35 PM
Here are the WOLFcon sched Details with slides: https://wolfcon2023.sched.com/event/2afabf08b39240a88c7715c20c2c2add
|
| :36 | Implementer's Topics, #112 | Dennis Bridges | - Retro fit a POL as a Package and/or add POL to Open Ongoing Order to handle Name Change (other instances)
- Happens regularly with ongoing orders where things change over time
- When already created as straightforward title link to inventory, ongoing subscription order - stuck and cannot do anything
- Need for ability to convert standard POLs to Package POLs and to add POLs in the future. Reasons to have both
- Flexibility ideal for ongoing orders - all about history, longevity, information
- Seems like converting standard POL to package POL would not be problematic.
- Would need to change title to package name.
- Receiving workflow would from that point on be independent.
- Going back the other way would be more complicated. Is it also a relevant use case to change a package POL into a standard POL?Â
- Can't imagine why you would need to do that.Â
- Never have synchronized for an ongoing order.Â
- For adding POLs, would that make sense for one-time orders?Â
- No. If you place a one-time order, you know what you are ordering. Only time it doesn't come into play is multi-volume, that's about quantity and price though
- Far more likely for ongoing orders.
- Once ordered, would it be dangerous to allow any given person to add something extra to that?Â
- Needing another permission for it would add a bit more complexity
- Kimberly Pamplin 12:56 PM
Would order history show that it was added later?- At the moment it would not. Should be added. Maybe even that a POL was deleted.
- scolglaz 12:57 PM
I am not worried
POL date created would show it
- Kimberly Smith - Is there anything in compliance or auditing where we would be relying on the software to put an internal control in place?Â
- Easiest way to implement is user must have edit order permissions
- More complicated would have it separate - Edit order permissions and add POL to open order permissions
- Sara - Not sure what we're worried about or that people will go in sneaking orders. Don't see how you could do it inadverntently.
- Kimberly Smith - Something to think about if it could be done maliciously.Â
|