Web Client: Parent/Guardian Field vs Secondary Identification

[Terran McCanna]

In 2.12.4:

The field we all know and love as Parent/Guardian in the xul client is called Secondary Identification in the web client (and called ID2 in the patron summary bar).

We currently make heavy use of the Parent/Guardian field - we could just customize the label locally, but it seemed like a good time to bring up this issue of whether Parent/Guardian should be split out to a different field or if Secondary Identification should be relabeled as Parent/Guardian.

Related bugs:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1183970
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1089767
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1197396

[Kathy Lussier (klussier)]

In our case, we prefer to keep the ident_type2 as a generic field where libraries can store a variety of different identification types. In the case where staff want to identify a parent/guardian, we encourage them to do so by putting something in the field along with the name noting that it is a parent's name. However, including the parent/guardian in the patron record isn't something done very often here.

Given that we have academic and special libraries in our consortia, it seems odd to those libraries to see a parent/guardian field, especially since this field was identified as ID2 in the patron summary bar. A more generic secondary identification field gives those libraries the flexibility to store something different here (e.g. student id) while also allowing the use of the field for parent/guardian information for those who need it.

Splitting the parent/guardian information out into a different field would also be good as long as it includes a setting to allow it to be hidden for those who don't use it.

[Nathan Eady (mrmcquack)]

Would it make sense to have Parent/Guardian be an entry in the primary and secondary "Identification Type" drop-downs, so that it could be selected as an alternative to things like Driver's License and Other?

[Kathy Lussier (klussier)]

Sorry, I thought I had posted this information earlier, but I must have dreamed it. I created some requirements on behalf of Georgia PINES for a small project that does exactly that. The requirements are available here -

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bCcroz0ocmC4ntM6qz257GdMFkrBi4ITsl0K9HYGkD4/edit?usp=sharing

It also adds a component to add a setting requiring a parent/guardian if the user is a juvenile. bug 1197396

PINES will be working with Bill Erickson on this project.

[Galen Charlton (gmc)]

Given the additional functionality that is proposed to be tied to this field, can we instead create a dedicated parent/guardian column along with an optional upgrade step to copy ident_value2 over to it?

[Terran McCanna (tmccanna)]

Either way is fine with PINES.

[Kathy Lussier (klussier)]

Adding a note that I think this is doable if the community thinks this is a better approach. Many thanks for the feedback Galen!

[Bill Erickson (berick)]

New code pushed:

http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/berick/lp1714070-patron-guardian-field

* Adds new 'guardian' field to user/auditor tables.
* Field is cleared when the patron is deleted
* Field displays in patron summary
* Field is searchable in patron search
* Adds show/suggest org settings for patron editor
* Adds new setting to require a value in the new field for juvenile patrons
* release notes, including SQL for migrating values from ident_value2 to the new guardian field.

[Bill Erickson (berick)]

Code rebased to current master. I also applied (and squashed) a small commit to swap the positions of the Parent/Guardian patron search field with the Include Inactive checkbox to give the form better visual balance.

[Kathy Lussier (klussier)]

Works for me! Since Jason has assigned himself to the bug, I pushed my signoff to the working repo at http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/kmlussier/lp1714070-patron-guardian-field

I'm also resetting the targets since this implementation seems more like a new feature than a bug fix.

[Jason Etheridge (phasefx)]

Thanks Kathy! I had tested master, but meant to test on the other branches. Happy that they're moot. :)

Pushed to master.