-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feature Request - transaction attributes #40
Comments
Sounds awesome - when do we start developing code tables?.... |
Before anything else, that's why I put the table definitions in the Issue; what can be moved? (My without-looking answer might be "whatever's NULLable.") |
I agree in principle, but making nearly everything an attribute means that some things will just get ignored (I mean, they probably are now, but putting them one step further down the chain makes it even more likely!). trans_remarksseems like a great candidate and having two attributes (one that is "curatorial - aka not viewable by the public, which I am bringing up due to a comment by @AJLinn about making accessions public) public remarks - information related to the transaction that should be publicly available datestrans_date
transaction processing history - the date a particular event in the transaction occurred
countsestimated part count - an estimate of the number of objects (parts) to be included in the transaction ArctosDB/arctos#6853 record count - number of catalog records included in the transaction identifierslenders_trans_num_cde - the identifier assigned by the lending institution. other transaction identifier - any identifier assigned to the transaction in addition to the transaction number of record in Arctos. Determiner should be the issuing agent. OK - that's my thoughts for now.... |
Yes, that's the split - don't think it matters HOW they get ignored....
If dates should DO STUFF then they should probably remain "fields" - querying for "whateverdate past whatever event..." and getting 372 different answers (attributes are always in "zero or more" relationships to their parent) would be difficult to work with. (That is, were I responsible for loans I'd want loan.due_date sending me notifications - but I'd have been screaming about it being NULLable for a while too, so ??)
Not really, there's no connection between disposition and loan. Send an item on loan, get it back, repeat 40 more times, send it out again, the first loan now has the item with a disposition of 'on loan' even though that particular loan was entirely dealt with decades ago. I can get the counts easy enough, but they don't mean what you are implying.
I like it, the alternative is probably a buch of things all used once or twice, general seems appropriate here. |
I like this in principle.... trying to imagine the regular usages for this. Can we add to next Issues meeting for a little more discussion/ input? |
I agree ith @mkoo, add to issues meeting agenda. For counts, I think we need perhaps three - all of which can go in attributes:
|
CT discussion:
|
Going next task, I know how to do this. |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We keep asking for weird transaction-things.
Describe what you're trying to accomplish
Flexibility (with agents and dates).
Describe the solution you'd like
Create a transaction attribute table, move some stuff to it
Describe alternatives you've considered
Don't.
Additional context
ArctosDB/arctos#6340 (comment)
ArctosDB/arctos#6853
ArctosDB/arctos#4316
Priority
Please assign a priority-label. Unprioritized issues gets sent into a black hole of despair.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: