Page Comparison

Announcements and discussion

Maggie

How to publicize new Ready for Community Developer status?

• How and when?

Dev Pri survey draft

• Are the goals reasonable?

• Will the results be actionable?

• Category list missing anything? Should anything be collapsed?

• Who else should look at this – UAC and TAC? Jessica Crouch?

Please also fill out strengths in the Dev. Pri. roster! This helps us identify areas of specialization need: Development Prioritization subteam

Old business tickets

Maggie (for Lydia)

Selfishly, I would like this to PASS

Maggie (for Lydia)

This ticket is super old, vague, and probably very difficult to manage. LT proposes to CLOSE this ticket.

Maggie (for Lydia)

This ticket is super old, vague, I don’t know that we even do deaccession records (besides an event). LT proposes to CLOSE this ticket.

Patrick

Need more contextual information about what would "look better".

Also need clarity on on the "add into the Edit Basic Information the Resource or Accession number and links back to the component". Do they just want links back to the linked resource/accession?

No current update from Kari.

Patrick

Ideally pass. Not exactly sure what's causing this, but can confirm that this bug appears. From what I can tell by researching <dao> structure standards, xlink attributes are technically not allowed. Would need to speak to development team about the best way to correct this.

Patrick

From Mark Custer:

I think the primary use case for this is MaRC exports. Right now, there is no way for ASpace to create a MARC record that does not have a 1xx field but does have at least one 7xx field. Such a record is certainly valid in MARC, though.

So, to illustrate the issue, if you import a MaRC record into ASpace that has no 1xx field and one 7xx field, you wind up with one agent linked to the record as a creator. Once you export that record, then you wind up with a MaRC record with that agent in the 1xx field.

Of course, if such a feature were added to ASpace (and that depends on how closely aligned ASpace wants to be with MARC), then I suspect that all of the creators already attached in the first position would need to be updated during a database migration to include the "primary creator" data attribute.

Would like someone from DevPri team to give thoughts on whether this is a good value-add for work.

Reviewing Ready for Development tickets: Bug kanban board (58 tickets total)

Each person has been assigned 8 tickets from the bug kanban board that currently have the Ready for Implementation status. Please review the tickets assigned to you and make recommendations on:

• Candidate for Ready for Community Developer? YES/NO (primary concern)

• Whether the ticket is still relevant, its priority ranking, and the tags (secondary concerns)

We’ll discuss candidates for Ready for Community Developer as a group, and can also address any secondary concerns that arise during the ticket reviews.

Patrick

1. ANW-138

   1. no

   2. According to Christine this would have to be broken into smaller tasks, and upgrading CodeMirror could be risky.

2. ANW-137

   1. no

   2. According to Laney and Lora there is a larger issue. Would need info on larger issue first.

3. ANW-148

   1. yes

   2. “Per Dev prioritization meeting, we will "fix" this by implementing improved error reporting indicating when the OCLC endpoint is no longer reachable, but there is little more we can do at this juncture. Will add a quick ping to the endpoint before attempting to do anything else, and if that does not succeed will inform the user that the OCLC service appears to be down.”

4. ANW-164

   1. no

   2. need decision on whether to add create

   3. also, this isn’t really an issue. you can just scroll down and dropdown is no longer obscured

5. ANW-179

   1. yes

   2. would need to work with dev team about views and exporters for agents

6. ANW-172

   1. yes

7. ANW-162

   1. no

   2. no longer an issue. couldn’t replicate

8. ANW-160

   1. yes
      

Terra

1. ANW-157

   1. y/n

   2. other concerns?

2. ANW-156

3. ANW-152

4. ANW-145

5. ANW-149

6. ANW-170

7. ANW-365

8. ANW-369

Alicia

1. ANW-194

   1. y/n

   2. other concerns?

2. ANW-205

3. ANW-206

4. ANW-347

5. ANW-234

6. ANW-251

7. ANW-262

8. ANW-261

William

1. ANW-249

   1. y/n

   2. other concerns?

2. ANW-276

3. ANW-275

4. ANW-288

5. ANW-345

6. ANW-292

7. ANW-316

8. ANW-308

Julia

1. ANW-323

   1. y/n

   2. other concerns?

2. ANW-604

3. ANW-425

4. ANW-635

5. ANW-652

6. ANW-664

7. ANW-665

8. ANW-691

Edgar

1. ANW-694

   1. y/n

   2. other concerns?

2. ANW-705

3. ANW-724

4. ANW-736

5. ANW-739

6. ANW-750

7. ANW-751

8. ANW-752

9. ANW-757

Maggie

1. ANW-758

   1. No – because involves different problems with SUI pdf exports and PUI pdf exports

   2. n/a

2. ANW-760

   1. No – priority is major

   2. n/a

3. ANW-782

   1. Yes? – minor priority and explains changes in code needed

4. ANW-783

   1. No – major priority and involves search

5. ANW-784

   1. No? – think this is a “nice to have” and tagged as a bug and minor, but the standards aspect + importer/exporter make me think it might be complicated

   2. Overlaps with Patrick’s answer re: ANW-504

6. ANW-787

7. ANW-792

8. ANW-823

9. ANW-880

Next meeting

All

Did this method work well?

Should we do anything differently for June meeting?