Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Sprint Goal / Focus

  •  

Sprint Schedule

  • Sprint: 72
  • Release: Elderflower
  • Quarter: 2019 Q3
  • Start Monday 9 Sep, 2pm UK
  • Finish Friday 20 Sep, 12pm UK


Sprint Capacity

Team AvailabilitySchedule | Calendar

Notes / Exceptions:

  • Module Release Prep / Deadline: 11 Sep 

Lead Roles:

QA Environment: folio-testing

Navigation

 Sprint Planning Agenda
  1. Sprint Goal / Focus
  2. Sprint Capacity
  3. Review sprint candidates 
  4. Agree technical approach / define key implementation tasks
  5. Finalise estimates / costings
  6. Confirm sprint scope
  7. Confirm first actions



Sprint Planning  

(error) - not in sprint

(tick) or @ - in sprint 

 

Sprint Focus

Feature IDIssue IDSprint Backlog?

Notes / Estimates / Actions

UXPROD-1472 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ERM-428 - Getting issue details... STATUS

"Current" status is being used to test logic, which may cause internationalisation problems, if using label/value. 

  • To avoid this, would need a feature to configure {agreement/link} status
  • Ideally, we distinguish between configurable vs editable refdata
  • Jag Goraya Create new issue to define, for each refdata set, whether configurable/editable, and implications  

TODO:

  • BE: Store amendment link status and notes (1d)
    • mirror how license links are handled
    • nested rather than at same level to support easier front-end handling
    • amendment link array, with amendments sorted in start date descending order
  • FE: implement form and error (3d)

UXPROD-1472 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ERM-429 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Mark Deutsch

FE: 3d including integration tests

  • Amendment notes are presented in UI mockup differently to how notes are handled for future/past licenses. Gill Osguthorpeto confirm that whether we should keep/break consistency.

UXPROD-1472 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ERM-430 - Getting issue details... STATUS

BE: 1d to configure rules

Added  ERM-441 - Getting issue details... STATUS

UXPROD-585 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ERM-395 - Getting issue details... STATUS

BE: 2d

UXPROD-585 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ERM-394 - Getting issue details... STATUS

BE: 0.5d FE: 0.25d

TODO:

  • Extend existing filters to include date range
  • Missing dates are treated as included, so would need to include NULL check
  • FE: update calls to revised endpoints

UXPROD-585 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ERM-392 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Existing pattern of counts logging - number of upserts 

Non-trivial maybe is handling single title services

UXPROD-585 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ERM-393 - Getting issue details... STATUS



ERM-371 - Getting issue details... STATUS

(error)Owen Stephens  to revisit with Gill Osguthorpe

ERM-422 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  • Is this person AND role, or is it person OR role?


Brought Forward

Feature IDIssue IDSprint Backlog?

Notes / Estimates / Actions


ERM-356 - Getting issue details... STATUS  /  ERM-361 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Estimate: 2d

Aim to prioritise to meet module release deadline to include in Daisy release.


ERM-217 - Getting issue details... STATUS



ERM-338 - Getting issue details... STATUS



ERM-182 - Getting issue details... STATUS



ERM-440 - Getting issue details... STATUS



ERM-438 - Getting issue details... STATUS


1 Comment

  1. Re: Create new issue to define, for each refdata set, whether configurable label vs editable, and implications 

    • all labels can be configured (although there is no UI / path to enable this, except for controlled lists in license terms)
    • the value is the key, and should not be editable (we match on this, or the ID)
    • the requirement is to support configurable translations for labels

    Inventory default refdata values to English, and is the pattern for how FOLIO handles these. 

    Multi-tenant support is a complication here.