Page tree

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Functional Area

Product Owner

Planned Release (if known)

Decision Reached


Link to supporting materials


e.g. loans, fees/finesNamee.g. Q4 2018, Q1 2019Clearly stated decision
  • Because...
  • Because...
e.g. mock-up, JIRA issue


  • Circulation - lost, Closing loan after declared lost - Emma Boettcher:

For open loans declared lost and paid, in which case loan is closed, who closed the loan: patron or system? Suggestion that maybe it’s “door number three,” the staff person who handles this transaction. Apparently although this is not impossible, it would require a substantial amount of development work. Might also be confusing to staff member, who may not realize that by accepting a fine and fee payment they closed a loan. Consensus that it should be the system.

  • Implementation questions, claimed returned/declared lost - Anya Arnold & Books Travis:

Can’t transition straight from “claims returned” to “missing” without “returning” the item in between, which is potentially confusing/misleading. Emma notes that this might be fixed in Goldenrod. Anya et al. will test and report back.

Jira for claimed notices:

  • Implementation questions, transit and reshelf/in-house use - Anya Arnold & Brooks Travis:

If a patron returns a book to campus A, but it belongs to campus B, first check allows time for “shelving time”/transit. If campus B double discharges item when it arrives, second discharge counts as an in-house use because there is no longer “shelving time” buffer built in at this point.

Discussion of fact that literature indicates that double-discharging does not reduce error rates.

Emma posted the following in chat:

“In-house use story:

If an item is Available & has 0 requests & is checked in at a service point for its effective location, is in-house use”

Desired behavior: 1) behavior should be consistent, 2) there needs to be a way for libraries that double discharge to ensure that this doesn’t count as an in-house use, without negatively affecting libraries that don’t do double discharge.

Consensus that this is not super important to the SIG right at this moment: probably would be ranked “can wait a year” by most or all members. Decision: Emma will create a Jira.

  • Implementation questions, Not naming/renaming the fixed due date schedule data entry table - Anya Arnold, Brooks Travis, and Brian Arrigo:

Date ranges do not currently have labels, and are not sortable: they display in order of creation with new entries at the bottom, which is not optimal (sorted by time period active would be better). Would also be nice if you could only display current and future fixed due date schedules with an option to “show all” to display historical data, as opposed to needing to delete them in order to keep the size of the list manageable. Another request to make them duplicable.

Consensus RA SIG wants: different sorting, sortable ranges, only so many ranges display at a time. Need to decide which PO will create a Jira. Decision: Cheryl will take a first stab at this and share with the SIG.

Consensus that this is not urgent (anticipate that most or all of us will rank “can wait a year”), but it does need to happen.

Discussion of impact of backdating a return to a period of time covered by a non-current schedule. SIG believes that this would not cause any problems.