The Valuation Control procedure is close to what we need, but in the SDMoM workflow the "Valuation Control Reference Number" is a required field. Is it possible to swap out the Reference # field for another (say, the Amount field). It seems like all of the records are linked internally by the unique ID and not by any particular string in the record. (See previous discussion about how uniqueness of the cataloging record number is not enforced.) If SDMoM doesn’t want to use the Reference # field in the Valuation Procedure, is it possible to declare another field to display in it’s place, where ever Valuation Reference # field is currently displayed? Peter -- Peter Murray Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager Cherry Hill Company

My interpretation of your questions, Peter - might either/both of these be what you're asking, or? - How can we remove the requirement that a value be entered into Reference Number field, in order to save or update Valuation Control records? (Aka: how can we make this field no longer be required?) - How can we suppress the display of that field altogether? On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> wrote: > The Valuation Control procedure is close to what we need, but in the SDMoM > workflow the "Valuation Control Reference Number" is a required field. Is > it possible to swap out the Reference # field for another (say, the Amount > field). It seems like all of the records are linked internally by the > unique ID and not by any particular string in the record. (See previous > discussion about how uniqueness of the cataloging record number is not > enforced.) If SDMoM doesn’t want to use the Reference # field in the > Valuation Procedure, is it possible to declare another field to display in > it’s place, where ever Valuation Reference # field is currently displayed? > > > Peter > -- > Peter Murray > Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager > Cherry Hill Company > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >

Ah, good clarification questions. Mostly first -- how do we make this field no longer be required? Also, are there any cascading effects if there is no value in the Reference Number? (e.g. if I just `display:none` the field in the UI.) And: what displays in the linked procedures table on the right of records that use this record? Peter > On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > My interpretation of your questions, Peter - might either/both of these be what you're asking, or? > > - How can we remove the requirement that a value be entered into Reference Number field, in order to save or update Valuation Control records? (Aka: how can we make this field no longer be required?) > > - How can we suppress the display of that field altogether? > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com <mailto:pmurray@chillco.com>> wrote: > The Valuation Control procedure is close to what we need, but in the SDMoM workflow the "Valuation Control Reference Number" is a required field. Is it possible to swap out the Reference # field for another (say, the Amount field). It seems like all of the records are linked internally by the unique ID and not by any particular string in the record. (See previous discussion about how uniqueness of the cataloging record number is not enforced.) If SDMoM doesn’t want to use the Reference # field in the Valuation Procedure, is it possible to declare another field to display in it’s place, where ever Valuation Reference # field is currently displayed? > > > Peter -- Peter Murray Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager Cherry Hill Company

There's a running list of needed documentation for CollectionSpace at: https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/UNRELEASED/Needed+Documentation At least for a few of these items there, one can find some cursory notes or links on how to accomplish various tasks for which more detailed documentation isn't yet available. Regarding required fields, a note there says: "In the Services layer, via ValidatorHandler classes. In the UI layer, via configuration and selectors; e.g. as discussed in a comment on CSPACE-6461 <http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461>." The ValidatorHandler class in the Services Layer, for the Valuation Control procedure is here; on its face, it doesn't appear that any fields are designated as required: https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/valuationcontrol/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/valuationcontrol/nuxeo/ValuationcontrolValidatorHandler.java (In contrast, here's a ValidatorHandler that *does* require a non-empty value in a required field: https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/collectionobject/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/collectionobject/nuxeo/CollectionObjectValidatorHandler.java ) So whatever validation is currently being done for this procedure might be located only in the UI layer. You might look at this comment and several that follow for cues about where to look to remove the valuation (while noting this issue is on *adding* such validation): https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461?focusedCommentId=46507&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-46507 Someone who's done this first-hand in the recent past, like Ray, Jesse, et al., can likely provide more direct information on how to do this, but am hoping this might be a useful starting place ... Aron On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> wrote: > Ah, good clarification questions. Mostly first -- how do we make this > field no longer be required? Also, are there any cascading effects if > there is no value in the Reference Number? (e.g. if I just `display:none` > the field in the UI.) And: what displays in the linked procedures table on > the right of records that use this record? > > > Peter > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu> > wrote: > > My interpretation of your questions, Peter - might either/both of these > be what you're asking, or? > > - How can we remove the requirement that a value be entered into > Reference Number field, in order to save or update Valuation Control > records? (Aka: how can we make this field no longer be required?) > > - How can we suppress the display of that field altogether? > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> wrote: > >> The Valuation Control procedure is close to what we need, but in the >> SDMoM workflow the "Valuation Control Reference Number" is a required >> field. Is it possible to swap out the Reference # field for another (say, >> the Amount field). It seems like all of the records are linked internally >> by the unique ID and not by any particular string in the record. (See >> previous discussion about how uniqueness of the cataloging record number is >> not enforced.) If SDMoM doesn’t want to use the Reference # field in the >> Valuation Procedure, is it possible to declare another field to display in >> it’s place, where ever Valuation Reference # field is currently displayed? >> >> >> Peter > > > -- > Peter Murray > Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager > Cherry Hill Company > > > >

Definitely a useful starting place -- thanks for the link to the clues in the "Needed Documentation" page...that is a page that I hadn't run into yet. This gives me some ideas to go on... I'm trying very hard to keep the SDMoM installation as clean as I can -- which at this stage means not modifying the underlying Java code. I've been successful so far, although one place where I might deviate is in enforcing uniqueness on the Cataloging identification number. Peter > On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > There's a running list of needed documentation for CollectionSpace at: > https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/UNRELEASED/Needed+Documentation <https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/UNRELEASED/Needed+Documentation> > > At least for a few of these items there, one can find some cursory notes or links on how to accomplish various tasks for which more detailed documentation isn't yet available. Regarding required fields, a note there says: "In the Services layer, via ValidatorHandler classes. In the UI layer, via configuration and selectors; e.g. as discussed in a comment on CSPACE-6461 <http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461>." > > The ValidatorHandler class in the Services Layer, for the Valuation Control procedure is here; on its face, it doesn't appear that any fields are designated as required: > > https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/valuationcontrol/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/valuationcontrol/nuxeo/ValuationcontrolValidatorHandler.java <https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/valuationcontrol/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/valuationcontrol/nuxeo/ValuationcontrolValidatorHandler.java> > > (In contrast, here's a ValidatorHandler that *does* require a non-empty value in a required field: https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/collectionobject/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/collectionobject/nuxeo/CollectionObjectValidatorHandler.java <https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/collectionobject/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/collectionobject/nuxeo/CollectionObjectValidatorHandler.java>) > > So whatever validation is currently being done for this procedure might be located only in the UI layer. You might look at this comment and several that follow for cues about where to look to remove the valuation (while noting this issue is on *adding* such validation): > > https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461?focusedCommentId=46507&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-46507 <https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461?focusedCommentId=46507&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-46507> > > Someone who's done this first-hand in the recent past, like Ray, Jesse, et al., can likely provide more direct information on how to do this, but am hoping this might be a useful starting place ... > > Aron > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com <mailto:pmurray@chillco.com>> wrote: > Ah, good clarification questions. Mostly first -- how do we make this field no longer be required? Also, are there any cascading effects if there is no value in the Reference Number? (e.g. if I just `display:none` the field in the UI.) And: what displays in the linked procedures table on the right of records that use this record? > > > Peter > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu <mailto:aron@socrates.berkeley.edu>> wrote: >> >> My interpretation of your questions, Peter - might either/both of these be what you're asking, or? >> >> - How can we remove the requirement that a value be entered into Reference Number field, in order to save or update Valuation Control records? (Aka: how can we make this field no longer be required?) >> >> - How can we suppress the display of that field altogether? >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com <mailto:pmurray@chillco.com>> wrote: >> The Valuation Control procedure is close to what we need, but in the SDMoM workflow the "Valuation Control Reference Number" is a required field. Is it possible to swap out the Reference # field for another (say, the Amount field). It seems like all of the records are linked internally by the unique ID and not by any particular string in the record. (See previous discussion about how uniqueness of the cataloging record number is not enforced.) If SDMoM doesn’t want to use the Reference # field in the Valuation Procedure, is it possible to declare another field to display in it’s place, where ever Valuation Reference # field is currently displayed? >> >> >> Peter -- Peter Murray Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager Cherry Hill Company

To make the reference number field not required, use the instructions in CSPACE-6461 that Aron sent. Either remove identificationNumber, or set it to a different field. To make a different field appear in search results and the sidebar, remove the mini="number,search,list,relate" from that field in the app layer config, and move it to the field you want. The "number" value means that this field should be the meta-number for the record, which is what is used, along with the mini="summary" field, in list results. The "search,list,relate" values mean that the field should be returned in various kinds of searches. Ray On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> wrote: > Definitely a useful starting place -- thanks for the link to the clues in > the "Needed Documentation" page...that is a page that I hadn't run into > yet. This gives me some ideas to go on... > > I'm trying very hard to keep the SDMoM installation as clean as I can -- > which at this stage means not modifying the underlying Java code. I've > been successful so far, although one place where I might deviate is in > enforcing uniqueness on the Cataloging identification number. > > > Peter > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu> > wrote: > > There's a running list of needed documentation for CollectionSpace at: > https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/UNRELEASED/Needed+Documentation > > At least for a few of these items there, one can find some cursory notes > or links on how to accomplish various tasks for which more detailed > documentation isn't yet available. Regarding required fields, a note there > says: "In the Services layer, via ValidatorHandler classes. In the UI > layer, via configuration and selectors; e.g. as discussed in a comment on > CSPACE-6461 <http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461>." > > The ValidatorHandler class in the Services Layer, for the Valuation > Control procedure is here; on its face, it doesn't appear that any fields > are designated as required: > > > https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/valuationcontrol/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/valuationcontrol/nuxeo/ValuationcontrolValidatorHandler.java > > (In contrast, here's a ValidatorHandler that *does* require a non-empty > value in a required field: > https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/collectionobject/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/collectionobject/nuxeo/CollectionObjectValidatorHandler.java > ) > > So whatever validation is currently being done for this procedure might > be located only in the UI layer. You might look at this comment and several > that follow for cues about where to look to remove the valuation (while > noting this issue is on *adding* such validation): > > > https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461?focusedCommentId=46507&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-46507 > > Someone who's done this first-hand in the recent past, like Ray, Jesse, > et al., can likely provide more direct information on how to do this, but > am hoping this might be a useful starting place ... > > Aron > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> wrote: > >> Ah, good clarification questions. Mostly first -- how do we make this >> field no longer be required? Also, are there any cascading effects if >> there is no value in the Reference Number? (e.g. if I just `display:none` >> the field in the UI.) And: what displays in the linked procedures table on >> the right of records that use this record? >> >> >> Peter >> >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu> >> wrote: >> >> My interpretation of your questions, Peter - might either/both of these >> be what you're asking, or? >> >> - How can we remove the requirement that a value be entered into >> Reference Number field, in order to save or update Valuation Control >> records? (Aka: how can we make this field no longer be required?) >> >> - How can we suppress the display of that field altogether? >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The Valuation Control procedure is close to what we need, but in the >>> SDMoM workflow the "Valuation Control Reference Number" is a required >>> field. Is it possible to swap out the Reference # field for another (say, >>> the Amount field). It seems like all of the records are linked internally >>> by the unique ID and not by any particular string in the record. (See >>> previous discussion about how uniqueness of the cataloging record number is >>> not enforced.) If SDMoM doesn’t want to use the Reference # field in the >>> Valuation Procedure, is it possible to declare another field to display in >>> it’s place, where ever Valuation Reference # field is currently displayed? >>> >>> >>> Peter >> >> > -- > Peter Murray > Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager > Cherry Hill Company > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org > >

Thanks, Ray. That makes sense. I'm glad I asked about the field elements earlier as well. Peter > On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Ray Lee <rhlee@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > To make the reference number field not required, use the instructions in CSPACE-6461 that Aron sent. Either remove identificationNumber, or set it to a different field. > > To make a different field appear in search results and the sidebar, remove the mini="number,search,list,relate" from that field in the app layer config, and move it to the field you want. The "number" value means that this field should be the meta-number for the record, which is what is used, along with the mini="summary" field, in list results. The "search,list,relate" values mean that the field should be returned in various kinds of searches. > > Ray > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com <mailto:pmurray@chillco.com>> wrote: > Definitely a useful starting place -- thanks for the link to the clues in the "Needed Documentation" page...that is a page that I hadn't run into yet. This gives me some ideas to go on... > > I'm trying very hard to keep the SDMoM installation as clean as I can -- which at this stage means not modifying the underlying Java code. I've been successful so far, although one place where I might deviate is in enforcing uniqueness on the Cataloging identification number. > > > Peter > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu <mailto:aron@socrates.berkeley.edu>> wrote: >> >> There's a running list of needed documentation for CollectionSpace at: >> https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/UNRELEASED/Needed+Documentation <https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/UNRELEASED/Needed+Documentation> >> >> At least for a few of these items there, one can find some cursory notes or links on how to accomplish various tasks for which more detailed documentation isn't yet available. Regarding required fields, a note there says: "In the Services layer, via ValidatorHandler classes. In the UI layer, via configuration and selectors; e.g. as discussed in a comment on CSPACE-6461 <http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461>." >> >> The ValidatorHandler class in the Services Layer, for the Valuation Control procedure is here; on its face, it doesn't appear that any fields are designated as required: >> >> https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/valuationcontrol/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/valuationcontrol/nuxeo/ValuationcontrolValidatorHandler.java <https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/valuationcontrol/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/valuationcontrol/nuxeo/ValuationcontrolValidatorHandler.java> >> >> (In contrast, here's a ValidatorHandler that *does* require a non-empty value in a required field: https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/collectionobject/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/collectionobject/nuxeo/CollectionObjectValidatorHandler.java <https://github.com/collectionspace/services/blob/master/services/collectionobject/service/src/main/java/org/collectionspace/services/collectionobject/nuxeo/CollectionObjectValidatorHandler.java>) >> >> So whatever validation is currently being done for this procedure might be located only in the UI layer. You might look at this comment and several that follow for cues about where to look to remove the valuation (while noting this issue is on *adding* such validation): >> >> https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461?focusedCommentId=46507&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-46507 <https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-6461?focusedCommentId=46507&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-46507> >> >> Someone who's done this first-hand in the recent past, like Ray, Jesse, et al., can likely provide more direct information on how to do this, but am hoping this might be a useful starting place ... >> >> Aron >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com <mailto:pmurray@chillco.com>> wrote: >> Ah, good clarification questions. Mostly first -- how do we make this field no longer be required? Also, are there any cascading effects if there is no value in the Reference Number? (e.g. if I just `display:none` the field in the UI.) And: what displays in the linked procedures table on the right of records that use this record? >> >> >> Peter >> >>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Aron Roberts <aron@socrates.berkeley.edu <mailto:aron@socrates.berkeley.edu>> wrote: >>> >>> My interpretation of your questions, Peter - might either/both of these be what you're asking, or? >>> >>> - How can we remove the requirement that a value be entered into Reference Number field, in order to save or update Valuation Control records? (Aka: how can we make this field no longer be required?) >>> >>> - How can we suppress the display of that field altogether? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com <mailto:pmurray@chillco.com>> wrote: >>> The Valuation Control procedure is close to what we need, but in the SDMoM workflow the "Valuation Control Reference Number" is a required field. Is it possible to swap out the Reference # field for another (say, the Amount field). It seems like all of the records are linked internally by the unique ID and not by any particular string in the record. (See previous discussion about how uniqueness of the cataloging record number is not enforced.) If SDMoM doesn’t want to use the Reference # field in the Valuation Procedure, is it possible to declare another field to display in it’s place, where ever Valuation Reference # field is currently displayed? >>> >>> >>> Peter -- Peter Murray Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager Cherry Hill Company