Open gormless87 opened 1 month ago
Checked with Sean and a woodlot license is a combination of numbers and letters, always 5 characters total (W followed by 4 numbers). Example: W1841; W0007, W2044
Hi @basilv ,
I will crate a new code table "project_plan_code" to hold two code ("WOODLOT", "FSP") values. And add two new columns in app_fom.project table: "project_plan_code" column and "woodlot_plan_number" column (VARCHAR(5)). Does the table/column naming make sense to you?
@MCatherine1994
Hi @OlgaLiber2 , Is there existing woodlot license FOMs in production(if you or Shan/Julius knows), and do you know what they entered at FSP field?
Hi @OlgaLiber2 , On "Admin" side, we might have an issue on search result table after adding another "plan type" (Woodlot License Plan) than initial FSP plan for FOM.
This is my local implementation screenshot:
The result table has:
I guess probably the above questions might need some discussion with Julius/Shan.
These are draft pr links in dev environment: public: https://fom-11.apps.silver.devops.gov.bc.ca/public admin: https://fom-11.apps.silver.devops.gov.bc.ca/admin
@Kghiya @basilv
One simple option is to change the column to Plan ID and add FSP # or WL # as prefix in the column values. The search by FSP ID could be left as-is, as long as its logic is correct to ignore woodlot licenses.
That's all good questions @ianliuwk1019 Those are all design so I will let @Kghiya look into it and work with you.
@OlgaLiber2 I have 2 options for you to select from
I will modify previous "FSP ID" column based on the new Mock up link but label it as "Plan Number" instead of "ID" (to be similar like FOM Number) and use "WL #" as prefix rather than "WLN #".
Current FOM Production existing fsp_id;
fom=# select p.fsp_id from app_fom.project p group by p.fsp_id order by p.fsp_id asc;
fsp_id
--------
10
11
14
17
24
26
32
51
55
58
76
93
96
102
109
111
119
142
144
181
214
240
336
379
408
448
488
523
584
620
625
630
631
632
637
640
641
643
644
645
649
651
660
671
672
675
684
687
692
694
696
705
707
729
730
731
733
738
740
742
743
755
758
759
761
771
773
774
780
782
784
786
787
790
801
803
806
807
812
816
822
823
825
828
836
837
840
851
852
855
858
868
872
873
875
881
882
891
892
895
897
902
903
905
914
930
936
941
943
944
946
948
958
959
960
962
980
981
984
992
999
1234
1271
115364
Wonder if there is number(s) in PROD that's for existing Woodlot FOM(s) or if not, then we are good. Should we ask Julius/Shan (I don't see 000 because the existing datatype is an Integer)? @basilv @OlgaLiber2
I suspect the 115364 FSP ID is likely an incorrect entry, by the way. And the query should return a value of "0", so if it doesn't I suspect that's because there are no woodlot licenses having created any FOM.
@ianliuwk1019 @basilv I confirmed with Sean that there are no FOM submission from woodlot licensees so far.
TEST deployment is done. Please have a look: Admin: https://fom-test.nrs.gov.bc.ca/admin Public: https://fom-test.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public
Thanks @OlgaLiber2 !
@ianliuwk1019 do you have a FOM number with Woodlot license published in test to look at?
@ianliuwk1019 do you have a FOM number with Woodlot license published in test to look at?
Hi @OlgaLiber2 , I added one yesterday in TEST environment. (FOM:100385)
@ianliuwk1019 It looks good. Just one thing. I think we can remove the "WL #" prefix from the table (in the UI). So it shows W4321 under Plan number.
Hi @OlgaLiber2 ,
Hope the FSP ones prefix with "FSP" looks ok for you with no "WL #" for woodlot together:
@ianliuwk1019 Ah, ok. I didn't realize FSP was prefixed with FSP #. So that makes sense to have WL #.... Sorry for the confusion
Describe the task Add support for woodlot licensees to enter their woodlot number instead of FSP ID
Acceptance Criteria
Additional context