Open saseestone opened 3 hours ago
This issue was originally reported by Darsi via feedback: https://jirasul.stanford.edu/jira/browse/SW-4387
Designs in Figma -- I provided two different examples. One has a longer title.
Request processing screens - https://www.figma.com/design/sqzYVhfRgn3nMArUAdrs0n/Requests-Bound-withs-and-random-SW?node-id=272-7286&t=JkJemIS6x3xXuxv4-4
Request confirmation screen (AND email confirmation) - https://www.figma.com/design/sqzYVhfRgn3nMArUAdrs0n/Requests-Bound-withs-and-random-SW?node-id=1590-6134&t=JkJemIS6x3xXuxv4-4
Currently when a Bound with child is requested, we send the child instanceID to folio as part of the request. We also send the itemId of the parent record. Example request confirmation w/details: https://requests.stanford.edu/patron_requests/16073.
The request is visible in Folio on the child record and everything looks like it's going to be fine.
Unfortunately, we've heard from circulation staff that when they receive the physical item and try to make the request available, Folio doesn't recognize the request. Instead, it tries to send the item back to the owning library for shelving. So even though Folio understands the link between the child and parent enough to display the user request on both the child and parent record in the Folio UI, receiving the parent item id is not making the request available.
If the request is placed on the parent title, and we send the parent instanceID and parent itemId, then folio will recognize the request and make it available.
Darsi R. is reporting this issue to the Folio community, in hopes we can get a fix. In the meantime, we need to:
We'll want to do all this in a way that we could easily revert back to our current way (sending the child instanceId) if/when Folio fixes their bug. (But we shouldn't hold our breath on this...)
A note that Darsi R. posted this issue in a Folio slack channel, and got a response from Brooks at EBSCO recommending we use the patronComments field to "store arbitrary data on the request record to pull the correct title for MyAccount display". We could look into that if we can get over the use of the "arbitrary data" comment. (Or maybe it's just me that gets ruffled by that.)