...
Kanban boards:
New bug reports: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=15
New feature requests: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=16
Link to ArchivesSpace sandbox: http://test.archivesspace.org/
\uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics
Topic / Who | Tickets | Notes | Decision | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Matthew Neely / All | Welcome | Work plan presented at joint TAC / UAC meeting. Update on outreach re:
| |||||||||||||||||
| This first emerged as bug report last year (
| ||||||||||||||||||
| This is a strange one. I’ve replicated the bug. It seems to change the heading at the top of the entry, but not the entry itself, so when it appears in a record, it’s still capitalized. Pass. | ||||||||||||||||||
| With this updated functionality - it would be helpful to be able to bring over agents and subjects associated with the original object. It may also be helpful to have similar functionality to the Archival Object creation where in collection level information is surfaced at the item level if no item level. Additionally, it would be helpful if the citation from the original item was transferred when an archival object is created - currently the system creates a totally new citation without any explicit connection to the original collection. | ||||||||||||||||||
| The ticket referred to an example on the sandbox, which I verified. There’s a real issue here (imported values don’t have unique mappings) but someone will need to make a feature-level decision about what should happen. Recommend passing (and using the enumeration value, to align with other importers) | ||||||||||||||||||
Dillon Thomas |
| Tried to replicate a few times in 3.4.1 and the calculate extents function does not appear to be generating any blank sub records as it did for users in 3.4.0. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Tested in the admin and repository settings and clear that the "create/update/delete vocabulary records" does not replicate "create/update/delete controlled value records" permission setting. The "create/update/delete vocabulary records" setting does appear to be obsolete and not granting any permission to change controlled value lists. Recommending passing. | ||||||||||||||||||
|