11:30am-1pm ET
\uD83D\uDC65 Participants
Dillon Thomas
\uD83E\uDD45 Goals
Prioritize new and awaiting more information tickets.
Links
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: ANW-1757 - Getting issue details... STATUS | |
ANW-1766 - Getting issue details... STATUS | This first emerged as bug report last year ( ANW-1528 - Getting issue details... STATUS ). The concerns about the unclear functionality regarding the functionality of the digital object merge feature were forwarded to User Docs. A new ticket was created (using basically the same text as the first ticket) to call for an enhanced digital object merge capabilities that would allow users to “to bring together simple objects to create complex one and conversely separate complex ones into simple objects”. I think this could be a useful feature but am curious to hear the team’s thoughts on this. If it moves forward, it might need a specification. | ||
ANW-1768 - Getting issue details... STATUS | 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. | ||
ANW-1749 - Getting issue details... STATUS | 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. | ||
ANW-1739 - Getting issue details... STATUS | 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 | ANW-1771 - Getting issue details... STATUS | 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. | |
ANW-1767 - Getting issue details... STATUS | Reached out for more information and have not heard back. Need more information about whether the left hand navigation is useful for other users. | ||
ANW-1744 - Getting issue details... STATUS | I am assuming the user is referring to the CSV export from accession browse results. I commented to clarify, but haven’t gotten a response yet. I think the easiest way to solve this would be to add Disposition to a possible accession browse column value in preferences. Recommend passing if possible (is there a text limit?), but otherwise it is possible to get disposition information from a custom report. | ||
ANW-1720 - Getting issue details... STATUS | |||
ANW-1750 - Getting issue details... STATUS | 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. | ||
ANW-1679 - Getting issue details... STATUS |