Refactor the catalog search form's org-select component for separation of concerns
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evergreen |
New
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
As part of bug 2032665, I will be creating a separate org selector component for the staff catalog search form. It will ultimately differ from the current org selector with 2 new features: the ability to hide certain org units, and the inclusion of shelving location groups.
In the meantime, though, my goal is to simply match the functionality of the org-select in the context of this form. It should behave completely the same from a user's perspective, but the code will differ in a few ways:
* Greater separation of concerns between org unit data parsing vs. data display vs. user interactions
* A high level of unit test coverage
* It does not contain org-select features that are not needed in the catalog search form
These three characteristics should hopefully make it quite a bit easier to implement the aforementioned functionality.
This is part of an overall project I'm working on with NOBLE, which is described here: https:/
Branch coming soon.
tags: | added: angular staffcatalog |
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | nobody → Jane Sandberg (sandbergja) |
tags: | added: pullrequest |
Here is the branch: https:/ /git.evergreen- ils.org/ ?p=working/ Evergreen. git;a=shortlog; h=refs/ heads/user/ sandbergja/ lp2062917- refactor- staff-catalog- org-select / user/sandbergja /lp2062917- refactor- staff-catalog- org-select
Testing this is a little awkward, since you have to essentially prove/disprove a negative. The goal is that no behavior changes on the catalog search org select, and I sure would appreciate help seeing how true that is. :-)
Noting also that this branch has similar vibes to bug 2054233 -- disentangle part of the org-select functionality for a specific use case so we can improve it later -- although they are looking at different use cases.
Not adding pullrequest at the moment, to give NOBLE (who sponsored this work) a chance to review and test it first.