Versions Compared

Key

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

...

Minute taker

Announcements/Updates

Conversation topics:

  • Jira
    serverFOLIO Issue Tracker
    serverId6ccf3fe4-3301-368a-983e-20c466b11a49
    keyUXPROD-1995
    and 
    Jira
    serverFOLIO Issue Tracker
    serverId6ccf3fe4-3301-368a-983e-20c466b11a49
    keyUXPROD-1925

    • Both of these allow for Acquisitions information to be viewable and linkable from Inventory. Workflow discussion - how will you manage your workflows without these features?
  • Jira
    serverFOLIO Issue Tracker
    serverId6ccf3fe4-3301-368a-983e-20c466b11a49
    keyUXPROD-1682
    • Display of suppressed records in UI in inventory
  • Change POL field, "Instance Type" to "Instance Resource Type."?
    • Confused about this field on whether/how it is required for the PO
    • Currently called Instance Type in Orders setting, but doesn't display in POL
    • Called Resource Type in Inventory
  • Want to understand how these rankings are being given and priorities
    • UChicago uses this a lot (but others are not ranking it highly)
    • Sara from MHO does not feel it is R1, but also does not rank for the 5Cs
      • the ease of changing a title and causing an unlinking, this is being described as a form of data corruption
      • It was important to know which items were linked to each other (for MHO)
    • from chat (Ranking descriptions from Implementation Group: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KxWryvOhqZNwYbGaj8jKDCBaf9THV4piOm3RUrvqVcg/edit#gid=0 )
    • comment from GBV? Peter (GBV): UXPROD-1995 ranked as R2 for them is ok
  • Demoing creating a one-time order 
    Jira
    serverFOLIO Issue Tracker
    serverId6ccf3fe4-3301-368a-983e-20c466b11a49
    keyUXPROD-1682
  • Because suppressed records in UI are found, it is confusing which record is which because there is no way that separates what is suppressed from what is NOT suppressed (no clear way to quickly tell what is the correct one)
  • UChicago really wants this ranked higher, and others acknowledge that the suppressed records need better visual recognition for quicker processing through steps
  • Sara from MHO suggests their issues are even more complicated because of the 5C consortium viewed all together, making the process even less clear
  • ref:  believe it's https://issues.folio.org/browse/UXPROD-961 
  • Shared from Dennis B: 

    https://wiki.folio.org/display/FOLIJET/Create+POL+automatically+from+Instance

  • go to settings:
    • Curious about how resource type is being created when one has not been specified
    • There must be a default thing to create the instance (Dennis B)
    • Inventory is adding my default, unspecified when it is not chosen
    • the list of resource types comes from Inventory
    • This happens when the Order is creating an Instance
    • No way of seeing within the POL a way of defining the Instance (but it is defining resource type, and it seems to be a required setting by FOLIO)
    • This could also be a form of data corruption that are Instances being created with the incorrect Resource Type in Inventory (when the defaults are being controlled by Inventory)
    • Unsure how the resource types are mapped from '3XXs'
    • Why does this default even happen in settings? (orders of a variety will be ordered and not specifically a default)
    • Some may have come from development in the past 
    • It is clearly not necessary to have a default resource type when ordering (esp if going to inventory to set it what the order actually is)
    • Why is the Instance Resource Type required? (but since it is required...)
    • Bug created for the Label (Dennis B)

  •  Start with impact of pieces on receiving and receiving records and ebooks (see #3 and #5)


  • How does receiving play into fiscal rollover?
    • If you leave the order open, it would probably rollover unless the 're-encumber' box were ticked
    • 2 options
      • close and receive against it (a warning will be there)
      • Or you could use the 're-encumber' toggle
    • Can you remove a current budget off if it is in fact paid from the previous year (fund with an order)?
      • Dennis B, you can manually release an encumbrance now
      • You can also close the order and it will release the encumbrance
    • Question about deleting old funds from a resource that was closed back in the past, and the idea would be to remove all the unnecessary years from a resource that closed out those years in the past in which no actual funds were needed to be encumbered
    • It seems that there is no transaction, even if a fund is associated, there may not necessarily be any transactions - which is really the essential issue (according to Dennis B)
    • If there were no encumbrances, changing the fund code, applies to that order in general
      • You would need to look back to those fiscal years to see what funds were impacted by those orders in previous years
      • Once the statuses are resolved, paid and received, then the order would automatically resolved
      • There is a toggle on the invoice where once an signify that they want to release encumbrances at the invoice line
      • It was really not clear why a fully paid invoice would result in encumbrances (but, this involves boxes being toggled in the appropriate places) (question from JulieB)
    • How to use statuses and their implications: future topic of conversation

...