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

Implement Vendor mapping for Orders - Step 1 #516

Closed
2 of 3 tasks
fontanka16 opened this issue Feb 20, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed
2 of 3 tasks

Implement Vendor mapping for Orders - Step 1 #516

fontanka16 opened this issue Feb 20, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@fontanka16
Copy link
Contributor

fontanka16 commented Feb 20, 2023

  • Assume vendor codes in FOLIO are the same as in the Order data.
  • Fetch all organizations (that are Vendors) from FOLIO and match by code.
  • Report vendors not matching by code and assign a the orders a fallback Vendor
@branchedelac
Copy link
Contributor

Is this done?

@branchedelac
Copy link
Contributor

Fetching all organizations may be unnecessarily time-consuming for libraries with many organizations, but where not all organizations are associated with orders.

Perhaps it would be preferable to instead fetch organizations only if they are encountered in the legacy data, with a CQL query to search by code. In most cases this will mean more API calls to FOLIO, but they will be distributed across the process so should not cause too much load. Any organization that has already been fetched can also be cached and reused in case it is referenced in ore orders.

Compare with how users are fetched and cached in the feefine mapper:
https://github.com/FOLIO-FSE/folio_migration_tools/blob/ef76b4bdbd3814adb755cfafef0e8ca87fc3af36/src/folio_migration_tools/mapping_file_transformation/manual_fee_fines_mapper.py#LL236C9-L236C28

@bltravis
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing this. Will create a new issue for fallback if needed.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants