There as been a /lot/ of discussion surrounding this functionality on
IRC over the last week, just to let everyone here know that it's not
being ignored.
More below.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Thomas Berezansky <[email protected]> wrote:
My previous email included a patch that was, unfortunately, just the tip of
the iceberg, so to speak. I have since figured out a lot of what needs to be
done to do this on the backend.
However, in looking at what needs to be done, I came up with several
questions as to how to handle things.
Currently the circulation flag, duration rule, recurring fine rule, and max
fine rule are on my list of things to have "fall through".
I am unsure as to whether or not to have the total copy hold ratio or the
available copy hold ratio values fall through or not. They are not
"endpoint" data, but at the same time may be considered to be an important
part of the checks.
In that regard, I see three logical options:
1 - Don't have them fall through. If they aren't set on the first matchpoint
found, they aren't set.
2 - Have them fall through until we run out of rules or they are filled,
like the four values above.
3 - Have them fall through, but only until we have filled the other four
values. Once the other four values are filled we officially stop checking
them.
I am partial to 1 or 3 in this case.
After discussion, option 3 seems sane and has gained general
consensus. One point I brought up was, how do you tell the system
that you do /not/ want to use an inherited test value and also don't
want to supply a value? IOW, what if you don't want to test a
copy-hold ratio and yet some broader rule does set a value for one of
these tests?
The answer is that a value of 0 (zero) acts the same as "don't test"
since all possible values will pass.
The other main issue I am seeing right now is the circ mod test. In
particular, the current system uses the matchpoint ID for the check. As my
changes make it so that there is more than one matchpoint ID possibly
involved there are several options:
1 - Negate the check when there is more than one matchpoint used in the
final result
2 - Use only the first matchpoint found for the check
3 - Have it use all matchpoints that were considered for the check (were
valid and before we filled in our values)
4 - Have it use all matchpoints that contributed to the check (were valid,
before we filled in our values, AND set at least one value)
I am partial to 3 in this case, as that would allow for creating a
matchpoint that would be specifically for triggering that limit, without
changing any of the resulting rules.
This question has not been addressed yet. I think that without
broader input, and in fact outside requests, we need to sit on this
one. I understand the argument for the flexibility of 3, but these
matchpoints and rulesets can already be very complicated, and the
potential for SAAD is high. Consider:
* matchpoint 1 (closest match) supplies all but max fine rule, and
has a circ-mod test for "book" that limits the user to 10 items out
* matchpoint 2 (fall-through by group) supplies the max fine rule,
and also has a circ-mod test for "book", but sets the limit at 5 items
out
Which do we honor? And, like the question about copy-hold ratios, how
do we say "do NOT test per-circ-mod items out at all"? There are no
magic values here, and the benefit of flexibility IMO is outweighed by
the complexity of getting it right from a user perspective.
Any thoughts?
All that said, I think this is some awesome work. Thanks, Thomas!
--miker
Thomas Berezansky
Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
Quoting Thomas Berezansky <[email protected]>:
Theory:
Make the things returned (circulate, duration_rule, recurring_fine_rule,
max_fine_rule) "fall through" when set to NULL.
The attached patch attempts to make this happen on the back end, but
provides no front end interface changes for configuring it.
IT HAS NOT BEEN TESTED, mainly because I don't want to screw with our
test system right now when others may be trying to test existing
functionality.
It also adds in the ability to pass in one more (optional) boolean
parameter to the function to return the entire list of rules used to
create the final result, intended for "debug/test" front end
functionality
to show what rules were considered in the fall-through checking.
Pros:
You can override a subset of those fields with a specific rule while
allowing broader rules to fill in the holes.
This may result in less duplication of information across rules, making
things easier to maintain.
Thus, this may result in less rules in general, and thus less processing
time on sorting them overall.
Cons:
Manually figuring out the specifics of what will happen will take more
time/effort.
Changing a single rule may have a greater unintended effect on other
rules.
Staff would need training for when to have a rule fall through and when
to set it.
More time to return from the DB for any rule that is "falling through" to
broader rules.
Examples for the following org tree:
CONS
-SYSA
--LIBC
--LIBD
-SYSB
--LIBE
--LIBF
Implementing the following "business" rules:
At the CONS level:
By default, everything circulates, uses DFLT_DUR duration, DFLT_RFINE
recurring fine, and DFLT_MFINE max fine.
Circ Modifier "book" uses the duration BOOK_DUR
Reference flagged materials don't circulate
At the SYSA level there are no special rules.
At the SYSB level the max fine should be SYSB_MFINE.
At the LIBC level the recurring fine is LIBC_RFINE
At the LIBD level circ modifier "book" uses the DFLT_DUR duration instead
of "BOOK_DUR"
At the LIBE level reference flagged materials circulate.
At the LIBF level there are no special rules.
The current method would require the following circ rules to implement
those business rules:
CIRC_LIB CIRC_MOD REFERENCE CIRC? DURATION_RULE RECURRING_FINE MAX_FINE
CONS NULL NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
CONS NULL TRUE FALSE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
CONS book NULL TRUE BOOK_DUR DFLT_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
CONS book TRUE FALSE BOOK_DUR DFLT_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
SYSB NULL NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE SYSB_MFINE
SYSB NULL TRUE FALSE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE SYSB_MFINE
SYSB book NULL TRUE BOOK_DUR DFLT_RFINE SYSB_MFINE
SYSB book TRUE FALSE BOOK_DUR DFLT_RFINE SYSB_MFINE
LIBC NULL NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR LIBC_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
LIBC NULL TRUE FALSE DFLT_DUR LIBC_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
LIBC book NULL TRUE BOOK_DUR LIBC_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
LIBC book TRUE FALSE BOOK_DUR LIBC_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
LIBD book NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
LIBD book TRUE FALSE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
LIBE NULL NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE SYSB_MFINE
LIBE book NULL TRUE BOOK_DUR DFLT_RFINE SYSB_MFINE
16 circ rules total.
The new method would require the following circ rules to implement those
business rules:
CIRC_LIB CIRC_MOD REFERENCE CIRC? DURATION_RULE RECURRING_FINE MAX_FINE
CONS NULL NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR DFLT_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
CONS book NULL NULL BOOK_DUR NULL NULL
CONS NULL TRUE FALSE NULL NULL NULL
SYSB NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL SYSB_MFINE
LIBC NULL NULL NULL NULL LIBC_RFINE NULL
LIBD book NULL NULL DFLT_DUR NULL NULL
LIBE NULL TRUE TRUE NULL NULL NULL
7 circ rules total.
Starting with the above, lets assume that SYSA wants to change their
recurring fine to SYSA_RFINE.
LIBC's recurring fine is to be unchanged.
The current method requires the following changes:
ADD the following entries:
CIRC_LIB CIRC_MOD REFERENCE CIRC? DURATION_RULE RECURRING_FINE MAX_FINE
SYSA NULL NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR SYSA_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
SYSA NULL TRUE FALSE DFLT_DUR SYSA_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
SYSA book NULL TRUE BOOK_DUR SYSA_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
SYSA book TRUE FALSE BOOK_DUR SYSA_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
UPDATE the LIBD entries:
CIRC_LIB CIRC_MOD REFERENCE CIRC? DURATION_RULE RECURRING_FINE MAX_FINE
LIBD book NULL TRUE DFLT_DUR SYSA_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
LIBD book TRUE FALSE DFLT_DUR SYSA_RFINE DFLT_MFINE
4 rules added, 2 changed, total is now 20 rules.
The new method would require the following changes:
ADD the following entry:
CIRC_LIB CIRC_MOD REFERENCE CIRC? DURATION_RULE RECURRING_FINE MAX_FINE
SYSA NULL NULL NULL NULL SYSA_RFINE NULL
1 rule added, 0 changed, total is now 8 rules.
Thomas Berezansky
Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
--
Mike Rylander
| VP, Research and Design
| Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: [email protected]
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com
