Benn Chang
My feedback
5 results found
-
21 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Benn Chang
commented
I received an update from Ex Libris: the Developers have given this issue a Version Commitment for Q3 2024. This is great news and I have requested help from NERS support to remove request 8890 from the ballot. Also, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all the folks at Ex Libris who have been committed to looking into and resolving this matter. A huge thanks to everyone involved.
Warm regards,
Benn Chang (he/him)
Library Services Platform Administrator
The University of Texas at Austin
changtb@austin.utexas.eduAn error occurred while saving the comment Benn Chang
commented
I am pleased to inform the Alma Working Group has approved 8890 Alma Allow Fines API to return CLOSED fees in the /users/{userID}/fees/{feeID} endpoint for inclusion on the ballot!
An error occurred while saving the comment Benn Chang
commented
I've opened a case with ExLibris, subject: Allow Fines API to return CLOSED fees in the /users/{userID}/fees/{feeID} endpoint.
The case owner states they could not find any information as to why this limitation exists. They could not find any upcoming projects or plans to adjust this API to allow for Closed fines/fees. They state, that since this is an improvement that would be adding new functionality to the system, it would be classified as an enhancement. The case owner also states, that, at the bare minimum it should be stated and explained why this limitation exists. They are currently consulting with Developers on this matter to get an answer to this question.
I've formally submitted an enhancement request to NERS to address the existing limitation with the /users/{userID}/fees/{feeID} endpoint.
ID Product Title Status ExLStatus
8890 Alma Allow Fines API to return CLOSED fees in the /users/{userID}/fees/{feeID} endpoint New PendingFurthermore, I'm currently in discussions with a reviewer from the Alma Working Group to clarify any points regarding the enhancement request. I will post any updates or progress related to the NERS request, as well as the Developers explanation of why this limitation exists as soon as they become available.
Benn Chang
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesBenn Chang
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesBenn Chang
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesBenn Chang
supported this idea
·
-
36 votesBenn Chang
supported this idea
·
Perhaps it is best not to remove 8890 from the ballot. Internal discussions have noted ALMA-L and past experience that an item being on the roadmap is not a guarantee that it will be implemented within the given time frame. NERS is the only guarantee of development. I am consulting NERS support on keeping 8890 on the ballot.