Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

UIIN-2557-settings-options-for-number-generators #2734

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

elsenhans
Copy link

UIIN-2557 Inventory Settings Options for using number generators for item barcode, accession number and call number

Purpose

Options for enabling / using the number generators for item barcode, call number and accession number needs to be available in Inventory Settings

Holdings level: call number

Item level: item barcode, accession number, call number

User story statement(s):

As a staff person I want to enable the number generators for item barcode, call number and / or accession number in Inventory App by selecting options in the Inventory Settings. In Settings under Inventory > Holdings, Items in the second/middle pane an entry “Number generator options” is displayed. Clicking on the “Number generator options” the third pane will be displayed with options:

(Default black banner for help text above options) Fields which are usually filled using a numeric sequence can use the number generator. When the generator is switched on the field can either be fixed to prevent manual update, or made fully editable. When switched off, the field must be filled manually.

Refs

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UIIN-2557

Screenshots

invetory-numberGenerator1
invetory-numberGenerator2

@elsenhans elsenhans requested a review from a team February 6, 2025 08:13
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 6, 2025

Jest Unit Test Statistics

       1 files  ±0     257 suites  +2   15m 21s ⏱️ +10s
1 028 tests +4  1 026 ✔️ +4  2 💤 ±0  0 ±0 
1 035 runs  +4  1 033 ✔️ +4  2 💤 ±0  0 ±0 

Results for commit 80bd049. ± Comparison against base commit efbde01.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@elsenhans elsenhans marked this pull request as draft February 6, 2025 08:26
@elsenhans elsenhans marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2025 09:00
@elsenhans elsenhans marked this pull request as draft February 6, 2025 13:40
@elsenhans elsenhans marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2025 14:23
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Jest Unit Test Results

    1 files  ±0    258 suites  +2   10m 45s ⏱️ -34s
1 043 tests +9  1 041 ✅ +9  2 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
1 050 runs  +9  1 048 ✅ +9  2 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 0e54b81. ± Comparison against base commit 04fcc5d.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@Dmytro-Melnyshyn Dmytro-Melnyshyn requested a review from a team February 10, 2025 18:04
package.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
package.json Show resolved Hide resolved
@Dmytro-Melnyshyn Dmytro-Melnyshyn requested a review from a team February 12, 2025 10:06
expect(screen.getByRole('button', { name: 'Collapse all' })).toBeInTheDocument();
});

it('should disable useSharedNumber-checkbox and show warning if clicking callNumber or accessionNumber to use manually', async () => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please re-format the tests to follow this format:

describe('when condition', () => {
  it('should do this', () => {});
});

Copy link
Contributor

@BogdanDenis BogdanDenis Feb 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, this one tests contains too many expect statements, at this point it's not clear what is expected. Please split this test into several smaller ones with 1-2 clear expect statements at the end

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @BogdanDenis !
I re-formated and splitted the tests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants