Hi again,

So, finishing the day, I was able to:
1) Add to database and object model the flag "verified" which defaults to
false
2) Build a POST method on  "documents/{documentId}/command=approve" which
switches the flag to true
3) Configure the post method built on 2) under maker-checker workflow
4) Validate that if maker checker is enabled for a DOCUMENT APPROVE action
(new action), a new entry is shown as result of GET to /makerchecker
5) Approve that pending command and update the flag.
6) Add the "verified" flag as a new json property to the GET /documents
response

This completes our use case requirement. However, I am not comfortable with
the information shown in the maker-checker tray, as there is no easy way to
link the document with the parent entity. If I am a checker user on mifos,
I would be seeing something like this:
[image: Imágenes integradas 1]

The document ID is 6, but there is no way to see the related client / group
/ loan / other. which owns the document. I mean, even knowing the document
ID, it is still not possible to find the actual document and verify it
before approval. Any ideas about how to improve this?

Thanks again

Lionel

2016-09-02 10:38 GMT-03:00 Adi Raju <adi.r...@confluxtechnologies.com>:

> You can go ahead with the changes and send in the PR.
> This is the right mailing lists for any development or contribution
> related questions.
>
> Regards,
> Adi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lionel Raymundi - Poincenot [mailto:lio...@poincenot.com]
> Sent: 02 September 2016 18:55
> To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Start work on FINERACT-209
>
> Hi Everybody,
>
> I would like to start working on *FINERACT-209 Maker-Checker principle for
> Document management*.
> I am not able to move the task to "in progress". If it is necessary please
> tell me how to do it.
> As this is our first attempt to contribute to the community, we will be
> having some questions about both developing model and (hopefully)
> contribution process. Is this the correct media to ask them?
>
> Thanks
> Lionel
>
>

Reply via email to