Include columns for all the distributions items in the distribution export

[scooter-dangle]

Summary

When exporting the distribution, we currently show only the items that have been distributed in the given timeframe. We should, instead, show columns for all the items, in a stable configuration.

Why make this change

Saving bank staff hours

Banks use the distribution export as input into outside processes (usually other spreadsheets). If the columns in the export change over time, that means the bank staff have to take the time to massage the spreadsheet before they can use it. One bank said it's a half hour every month for them to do that.

(Obviously, if the bank adds new items, there will be new columns in the sheet. That's reasonable to expect.)

Details

Show the full set of the organizations' items when exporting.

Does this include inactive items?

Yes -- because they may be doing reports that are backdated or over a longer period of time during which items may have become inactive. [Not confirmed with the user group, and we might get some feedback for this, but that's a pretty solid stance.]

What order?

I don't think it matters, as long as it's stable. Let's go with alpha by item name.

Criteria for completion

• Export includes columns for all items - active and inactive
• Tests to demonstrate that functionality works

Bonus round

• same thing for donations, purchases, product drives

NOTE: DON'T DO THE BONUS ROUND UNTIL CL CONFIRMS THEY DON'T ALREADY EXIST AS ISSUES.

[Aliciawyse]

Hello! Just now getting started on this!

[cielf]

Hey @Aliciawyse -- re the "bonus round":

There is an issue already for including items in the product drive export -- it was initially implemented without the items (alas). The pattern would be the same as for distributions, etc, but I expect it's definitely more work.

The changes for donations and purchases that corresponds to this issue don't exist as issues. They should be similar to the distribution change. If you want to take them on as a bonus round, that's great, or I can add them separately to the queue -- where you can choose to pick them off, or not.

What would you prefer?

[github-actions]

This issue has been inactive for 240 hours (10.00 days) and will be automatically unassigned after 120 more hours (5.00 days).

[t-vee]

Hi, is anyone still working on this? I'd like to try, although I'm currently not planning on completing the bonus round. I'll know after I fix the distribution issue.

[cielf]

Alicia had to drop it -- so go ahead and give it a shot.

[github-actions]

This issue has been inactive for 247 hours (10.29 days) and will be automatically unassigned after 113 more hours (4.71 days).

[t-vee]

I've fixed the issue but I can't get the tests to work. Does anyone know how to create a sample organization for the test to run on? I was hoping to use one of the organizations in the database but they don't show up, and just creating an organization means it has no distribution data to begin with.

[cielf]

@technic-void Can you use the factories to create an organization, and then to create a distribution (IIRC, the distiribution factory creates a distribution on the first organization)

[github-actions]

This issue has been inactive for 260 hours (10.83 days) and will be automatically unassigned after 100 more hours (4.17 days).

[github-actions]

This issue has been inactive for 380 hours (15.83 days) and is past the limit of 360 hours (15.00 days) so is being unassigned.

[cielf]

Just confirmed that this hasn't been taken care of yet.

[katelovescode]

I'd like to take this on, working on a PR on my fork!

[katelovescode]

Oh, and also - my suggestion is that instead of alpha order we do created_at on the item. If we use alpha and they add an item that starts with K, for example, it'll bump all the other columns to the right, which can cause a lot of manual work (like having to count columns, etc.). If we do created_at, new items will always be at the end, so it should be easier for them to adapt their process when they have to add columns. Happy to do it alphabetically if that's deemed better though.

[cielf]

There's definitely a tradeoff here -- between stability (by created_at) and ease of finding things (alpha). Let me see if I can figure out how often new items get added once a bank is up and running -- if it is pretty rare, we should go with alpha, but if it's pretty common, then created_at makes more sense. [So that aspect is definitely in my court now]

[cielf]

Yup -- I think you're right. We'll see if anyone complains, but the people who use this feature most are going to value the stability.

[cielf]

@katelovescode And so, I think that created_at makes sense.

[katelovescode]

@katelovescode And so, I think that created_at makes sense.

Awesome. We can always change it later, too. :) Just working on tests and then this should be ready to view.