Versions Compared

Old Version 5

changes.mady.by.user Brandon Bowersox-Johnson

Saved on

compared with

New Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Brandon Bowersox-Johnson

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Creating a Stock Card: This is not a right, because we expect the system will create a stock card on-the-fly on an as-needed basis. This might happen during a physical inventory, or even while recording an adjustment. The other rights cover those cases. For example, if a user can adjust stock for Program A at Facility Z, then their activities in the system can also result in creation of a stock card at A and Z.
  • Editing a Stock Card: This is not a right, because currently there is nothing to edit. The stock card has no fields other than its identification as a combination of a Program, Product (Orderable) and Facility. It also has Line Items, but those are covered above.
  • Issuing and Receiving: There are not specific rights for this. We may decide in the future to create a new right when this functionality is added.
  • Receiving by POD: (also not in scope yet)

Open Questions

  1. Program Dropdown List (this is a separate dependency that we will still discuss and add into this document)
  2. Orderable Dropdown List (same)
  3. Do we need any other mechanisms for users to see across multiple programs? or across multiple facilities? The scheme would require assigning multiple rights if the user needed permissions to multiple facilities. The scheme above would involve using supervisory nodes to give permissions to multiple facilities (any section of the supervisory hierarchy).
    1. Proposed Answer: This is good enough for now. It is a little clunky, because there is no way to say "assign this user for ALL programs at Facility X". But that's okay.
  4. We are not sure if some existing code has endpoints that are were removed from scope during the workshop. For example, the stock card template feature was already built, and there is an endpoint for it, but we are not sure if it is in scope for v3.1 or not. Another example is the valid destinations endpoint, which is only needed for Issue/Receive functionality.
    1. Proposed Answer: Remove the endpoints from the RAML before the release. That way they will not be registered by Consul. The code will be there (in Java source), but nobody can hit those endpoints.