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

Generate Site ID #259

Closed
5 tasks done
nathankota opened this issue May 24, 2023 · 24 comments · Fixed by #387
Closed
5 tasks done

Generate Site ID #259

nathankota opened this issue May 24, 2023 · 24 comments · Fixed by #387
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@nathankota
Copy link

nathankota commented May 24, 2023

  • Generate a Site ID during the site creation workflow once the site information is complete (contacts, info, location)
  • The Site ID must not change if any part of a site is edited at any time by an admin or the applicant
  • Display the Site ID in the Site Information panel:
    image
  • Display the Site ID on the Inventory Review page
  • Display the Site ID on the Inventory Review report

Site ID format:

  • UTUccSXXXXXXXX, where
  • UTU is a constant
  • cc is the county FIPS code (2 digits)
  • S is a constant (i.e. "Site")
  • XXXXXXXX is a randomly generated, unique sequence of eight (8) alpha-numeric characters
@steveoh

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@nathankota

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@steveoh

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@steveoh

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@steveoh

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@nathankota

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@nathankota

This comment was marked as outdated.

@steveoh

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@steveoh

This comment was marked as outdated.

@rsparker-utah

This comment was marked as outdated.

@nathankota
Copy link
Author

@rsparker-utah What do you think about changing the F to S in the ID since we mostly refer to the parent location as Site rather than Facility in the app? It will also provide a quick visual identification of records in the database that came from the app versus those that were pre-app.

@nathankota nathankota added the question Further information is requested label Oct 16, 2023
@nathankota nathankota added the client feedback External feedback is desired. Please comment ASAP label Oct 16, 2023
@rsparker-utah
Copy link
Collaborator

@nathankota I ran this by our UIC group and we all thought this makes sense. We are for this idea.

@nathankota nathankota removed client feedback External feedback is desired. Please comment ASAP question Further information is requested labels Oct 18, 2023
@steveoh steveoh self-assigned this Nov 3, 2023
@steveoh
Copy link
Member

steveoh commented Nov 6, 2023

@nathankota this is 7 requests bundled up in one. I'll take the liberty to add the field to the review page where it seems to fit. The report page is the same page printed right? Is the ARB letter still relevant? The last one is probably handled by another issue. Do you agree?

steveoh added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 6, 2023
steveoh added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 6, 2023
@steveoh steveoh assigned nathankota and unassigned steveoh Nov 6, 2023
@nathankota
Copy link
Author

nathankota commented Nov 6, 2023

@nathankota this is 7 requests bundled up in one.

I struggled with lumping vs splitting, and went with the former to keep it all together and tight. If it doesn't work as well for you, I will use it as a lesson for the future.

I'll take the liberty to add the field to the review page where it seems to fit.

👍

The report page is the same page printed right?

Yes, with layout updates eventually via #273

Is the ARB letter still relevant?

Yes ref: #282

The last one is probably handled by another issue. Do you agree?

I'll put it in #284 so it doesn't get lost, and remove it from here.

@nathankota
Copy link
Author

nathankota commented Nov 6, 2023

@rsparker-utah, I tested this a bit and it looks good to me, but I'd appreciate your further validation that it is ready to close. In particular, I kept an eye on the ID format, particularly FIPS. It looks like it's showing up in all the right places, with ABR still to come (#282).

@nathankota
Copy link
Author

@rsparker-utah please confirm that this works as expected

@rsparker-utah
Copy link
Collaborator

Tested and validated on the following sites/inventories:
Site 109, inventory 201
Site 110, inventory 202
Site 111, inventory 203

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants