The setup the process for configuring ExCourtbot to support county duplication is not extremely clear and additionally does not force additional configuration. Some additional high level considerations need to be evaluated and implemented.
For this particular feature to work with the rest the following requirements need to be met:
the field :county must be mapped
:county must be non-empty on all imported records.
The importer should refuse to import if it sees that there is already cases imported, the county column is empty, and the field is mapped. The rationale being that this could indicate the importers configuration has changed to add the :county mapping but the previously imported records have no default value leaving the specific case/county number duplication resolvable for those records.
Perhaps an interim implementation detail is warn the admin when attempting to change this in the frontend and upon change to dump all hearing and subscriber data to backup tables.
The end user messaging must include a county prompt every time a case number is queried; regardless if there is a potential for duplication. This maybe something that is later limited to only specific case types.
tylersamples
commented
5 years ago
The setup the process for configuring ExCourtbot to support county duplication is not extremely clear and additionally does not force additional configuration. Some additional high level considerations need to be evaluated and implemented.
For this particular feature to work with the rest the following requirements need to be met:
:countymust be mapped:countymust be non-empty on all imported records.countycolumn is empty, and the field is mapped. The rationale being that this could indicate the importers configuration has changed to add the:countymapping but the previously imported records have no default value leaving the specific case/county number duplication resolvable for those records.