[CONTRACT_MGMT][CONCEPT] "Contract Agreement Admin View" show assets for contractID's

mkanal commented 3 months ago

As Trace-X admin I want to view assets for contract id so that could investigate the related assets for a contract id

Link

MIRO Board https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVO5JVoho=/?moveToWidget=3458764580844404410&cot=10
To clarify, one Contract relates to a subset of Data related to one Part, e.g. one aspect of the many of what a part is been described with.

[x] "Contract Agreement Admin View" provides navigation (DeepLink) functionality to show all assets in "Part View" for a given contractId
[x] Decision whether to support single or multiple selection for contractIds selection for showing related assetIds.
[x] Create pbi for implementation or inform PO to do that

mkanal commented 2 weeks ago

@ds-crehm why have you added the BLOCKED label. Please add a reasonable info.

ds-crehm commented 1 week ago

Only a single contract can be selected to filter for.

Ready for review

mkanal commented 1 week ago

Review

Action in Contract View: "View parts" is very generic. E.g. "Show Contract Parts" /"Show exchanged Parts" could be more precise and comprehensible.
How do you deal with the fact that there can be several contract negotiations for one and the same asset? How is this displayed in the table and how is it filtered?
Please check again exactly what information is involved in the Contract ID. Is this the negotiation ID or the contract agreement ID? Please enter the correct name here.
How does the filtering work on the two tables? For example, if one of the tables is not shown and this is only shown after activation. Is the filter then also set on the inactive table?
Is the action always securable or does it depend on the status of the contract? What happens in case of ERROR?
fyi @ds-crehm

ds-crehm commented 1 day ago

Understandable, however all other actions in Trace-X rely on the tooltips to convey the description of the action. So that's what I did here as well. We can create a ticket to change it, if you still want it differently.
It would be handled just like the situation when a user selects multiple filters - no workaround needed
In the contracts API, it is called "contractID". And this is the value we are filtering for. In the frontend, there is no mention of Contract Agreement ID or Negotiation ID. So I went with contractID and think this is the correct choice.
The filter is always set, regardless of the visibility of the table. After the filters are set, the user can manage them individually for both tables.
I'll discuss the error handling with @ds-mmaul and make sure that it is covered sufficiently.

mkanal commented 11 hours ago

PO acceptance in behalf of @jzbmw. LGFM all ac resolved.