Add acquisitions data to the Concerto dataset
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evergreen |
Fix Released
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
It would be very nice to have some acquisitions data in the Concerto dataset so that testers don't need to set up fund sources, funds, providers, etc. when testing acq enhancements and bug fixes. I'm opening this bug to track what would be needed.
* A handful of funds and fund sources owned by some of the org units in the sample data. It might be a good idea for branches to own some funds and systems to own others. We have libraries that do it both ways, and it would be good to ensure both structures are supported. Money should already be allocated to the fund sources and funds.
* The same OUs with funds should also have some providers. Including a MARC holdings tag and subfield information in each of the provider records would make it easier to test code related to MARC Order Record uploads.
* We should have some POs in an on-order state with a mix of lineitems that are on-order, delayed, canceled, and received. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have some POs in a received state too.
* We should also have some invoices, perhaps with lineitems linked to those received lineitems in the POs.
Any other ideas for sample data that we should include?
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | nobody → Bill Erickson (berick) |
status: | New → In Progress |
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | nobody → Kathy Lussier (klussier) |
tags: | added: acq |
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | Kathy Lussier (klussier) → nobody |
Changed in evergreen: | |
status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
Getting started here:
http:// git.evergreen- ils.org/ ?p=working/ Evergreen. git;a=shortlog; h=refs/ heads/user/ berick/ lp1486294- acq-sample- data
Includes:
* funding sources
* funds
* funding source credits
* fund allocations
* providers
Note that most providers represent real vendors with their real SAN's, since that will provide more accurate tests (e.g. processing EDI templates). Note that no EDI connection information is included.
Comments on the content appreciated. If the data as-is looks like a good start, I'd be in favor of merging it sooner than later. We can always continue from there.