Acquisitions funds endpoint RFC

Actions and routes

Description	Action	Proposed path
List funds	GET	/acquisitions/funds
Add a fund	POST	/acquisitions/funds
Get a fund	GET	/acquisitions/funds/{fund_id}
Overwrite a fund	PUT	/acquisitions/funds/{fund_id}
Delete a fund	DELETE	/acquisitions/funds/{fund_id}
Partially update a fund	PATCH	/acquisitions/funds/{fund_id}
Description	Action	Proposed path
List fund users	GET	/acquisitions/funds/{fund_id}/patrons
Add a fund user	POST	/acquisitions/funds/{fund_id}/patrons
Delete a fund user	DELETE	/acquisitions/funds/{fund_id}/patrons/{patron_id}

Note: it would be correct to pick users over patrons in this case. This should be voted, though.

Fund object definition

DB schema	API	Comments
budget_id	fund_id	Name changed to match UI
budget_code	code
budget_name	name
budget_branchcode	library_id
budget_amount	total_amount
budget_encumb	warn_at_percentage
budget_expend	warn_at_amount
budget_notes	notes
budget_period_id	budget_id
timestamp	timestamp
budget_owner_id	fund_owner_id
budget_permission	fund_access
sort1_authcat	statistic1_auth_value_category
sort2_authcat	statistic2_auth_value_category

Comments

• (fixed) What's budget in the code is fund in the GUI, which is quite confusing as is. We need to be careful to get it right for the API.
• (fixed) What's the reason to remove encumb and expend?
• fund_access: 1=owner, owner and users = 3, owner, users, and library = 2. How to translate this best into the API? Use words instead of magic numbers?
• statistics*_auth... also appears in the orders endpoint. We need to make them consistent.

--Kfischer 16:39, 10 April 2018 (EDT)