2023-05-02 Meeting notes

Review of draft Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About ArchivesSpace Development (but were maybe afraid to ask)

• If folks want to add comments on this before the meeting, do it here.

Group thought the new draft was really good and very helpful to have everything in one place.

@Keli Schmid

1. ANW-1669: Assessment Attributes - ability to reorder default and custom attributes as one listReady for Implementation

2. ANW-1670: Assessment Attributes - ability to delete or hide unused default attributesReady for Implementation

3. ANW-748: change the stylesheet of the Collection Organization to be more clear for hierarchical order.Closed-Will Not Do

1. and 2. These requests both relate to the ability to change the way attributes are displayed. Both requests seem reasonable and helpful, though not crucial to the overall functionality of ASpace. Minor priority recommended

3. I’m not sure what this ticket is asking for, as I see clear hierarchies in the Collection Organization layout. Maybe this is something that was already addressed between 2018 and now? Or maybe the user would like the collection organization to be displayed as a collapsible list? (as in the examples cited)

1. Pass. Set to minor priority

2. Pass. Set to minor priority. Add a comment that developers working on this may want to consider changing this to a controlled value list.

3. Close, will not do.

@Daniel Michelson

1. ANW-1725: Rights statements have created and modified info overwritten by updates to parent recordClosed-Will Not Do

2. ANW-1724: make refid editable by usersReady for Implementation

1. This is a somewhat broader issue than first realized. It appears that all(?) subrecords have their created and modified fields overwritten with any changes to the parent record. As noted in Michelle’s comment, this is particularly odd for the creation info. Unless there is a technical reason why it has to work this way, I think it’s something that should be changed (although pretty low priority).

2. This ticket wants refids to be editable via the API. Currently, it is not possible to update refids in any way (other than directly editing the database). The decision to make them not editable was an intentional choice at some point (reaffirmed at our September 7, 2021 meeting when we closed ANW-1183: As a repository manager, I would like the set Ref ID function in RDE as well as in AS formsClosed-Will Not Do), but I’m not clear on why. The requestor gives a use case that seems very specific to a particular institution’s practices, but it also seems like a low-lift to make it editable via the API, so I guess I’m in favor.

1. Close. Issue is happening due to a technical reason and isn’t important enough to undertake the development work needed.

2. Pass.

@Randy Kuehn

1. ANW-1713: Missing precision in API date search should fail more gracefully.Ready for Implementation

2. ANW-1714: Allow for m8ulti-factor authentication with ArchivesSpace authenticationAwaiting More Information

1. Recommend: Update API docs…unsure about request for default value
   I couldn’t find any API documentation on a date “precision” parameter, but I think it’s referencing day, month, year.

2. Recommend: Pass
   I believe this has come up before…looks like multi-factor authentication is here to stay

1. Pass.

2. Point to plugin and ask if meets their needs.

@Matthew Neely

1. ANW-1678: Records can be created in the wrong repoReady for Implementation

2. ANW-1687: Problems when transferring large collectionsReady for Implementation

1. Successfully recreated this ticket in sandbox. This is a bug so recommend passing.

2. This is a bug / needs message alerting user transferring resources between repositories. Appears to fail after timeout but eventually happens in the background.

1. Pass.

2. Pass. Consider using background jobs to do this as a potential solution.

@Matt Strauss

1. ANW-1686: Ampersands break search facetingReady for Implementation

2. ANW-1695: Add Edit required fields functionality for more record types, including accessions, resources, archival objects, and digital objectsReady for Implementation

1. Confirmed existence of this bug in the sandbox.  The issue exists both in the facet search and in the main search (as described in a comment on the ticket). Recommend passing.

2. Requester would like to be able to select which fields are required with archival objects, accessions, resources, and digital objects. Currently, this can be done with Agents through the “Browse Agents” interface.  Possibly this functionality could be extended to these other types of records. I think this would be a useful feature – recommend passing.

1. Pass.

2. Pass.

@Tom Steele

1. ANW-1680: Increase visibility of keyboard shortcutsReady for Implementation

2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1681

1. I can't think of a reason why not. Why have this keyboards shortcut list if it's not known to the users? Pass

2. This seems to be two tickets? they're both RDE related so maybe they can be addressed together. The first issue is valid, esc should exit RDE. Though the ticket didn't seem to know the x is also a valid way to close the window. The second part is definitely an accessibility issue. Pass both.

1. Pass.

2. Pass. As part of development work appropriate accessibility standard needs to be identified and consulted.

Next Meeting

Matthew will be selecting tickets and creating the agenda for our final meeting of the term, during which we will also have a retrospective for the year.