Always add newly implemented fields to API and Analytics
We have repeatedly run into issues with the following: Things implemented in the Alma UI are not automatically available via API and/or Analytics.
Recent examples include:
* June 2020 "Can't edit restricted users" - Ex Libris offered to add this to the API, but not to Analytics
* CDI Search activation status - as of now it is not clear whether we will have access to this via API
To be honest: I am not willing to open an idea or NERS every time Ex Libris thinks it's nice to have something in the Alma UI, but do not care to implement for the API and/or Analytics. And I thought: Maybe neither are you.
There might be cases where it actually makes sense to add a field to only one of the three systems. But these systems are interlinked and Ex Libris should handle them as such. Only in very rare cases such fields should only be available in Alma UI and there must be information included in the release notes why exactly something was not added to the API and/or Analytics.
Anonymous
shared this idea
-
James Clark
commented
I've just run into this with the activation_note for e-resource POLs. If you create a POL for an e-resource via the API and add some text in the receiving_note field, it appears as an activation_note in Alma. If you use the API to get the same POL, it comes back with the receiving_note field empty and no activation_note field. I was told it was an enhancement.
-
Stacey van Groll
commented
Agreed - there should be holistic design as standard.