Modinvstor 1446

[AlexanderSambale]

Purpose

Describe the purpose of this pull request. Why is this change necessary? What problem does it solve?

This pull request is for integrating the folio-custom-fields backend library into mod-inventory-storage, so that it supports storing custiom field values on inventory items.

Approach

How does this change fulfill the purpose? Provide a high-level overview of the technical approach taken to address the problem.

We followed the guide in https://github.com/folio-org/folio-custom-fields for implementing the library and used the implementation in https://github.com/folio-org/mod-orders-storage as reference.

Changes Checklist

• API Changes: Document any API paths, methods, request or response bodies changed, added, or removed.
• Database Schema Changes: Indicate any database schema changes and their impact. Confirm that migration scripts were created.
• Interface Version Changes: Indicate any changes to interface versions.
• Interface Dependencies: Document added or removed dependencies.
• Permissions: Document any changes to permissions.
• Logging: Confirm that logging is appropriately handled.
• Unit Testing: Confirm that changed classes were covered by unit tests.
• Integration Testing: Confirm that changed logic was covered by integration tests.
• Manual Testing: Confirm that changes were tested on local or dev environment.
• NEWS: Confirm that the NEWS file is updated with relevant information about the changes made in this pull request.

New API

GET, PUT, POST /custom-fields
GET, PUT, DELETE /custom-fields/{id}
GET /custom-fields/{id}/stats
GET /custom-fields/{id}/options/{optId}/stats

Permissions

inventory-storage.custom-fields.all
inventory-storage.custom-fields.collection.get
inventory-storage.custom-fields.collection.put
inventory-storage.custom-fields.item.post
inventory-storage.custom-fields.item.get
inventory-storage.custom-fields.item.put
inventory-storage.custom-fields.item.delete
inventory-storage.custom-fields.item.stats.get
inventory-storage.custom-fields.item.option.stats.get

Related Issues

List any Jira issues related to this pull request.

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/MODINVSTOR-1446
https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-5370

Learning and Resources (if applicable)

Discuss any research conducted during the development of this pull request. Include links to relevant blog posts, patterns, libraries, or addons that were used to solve the problem.

https://github.com/folio-org/folio-custom-fields
https://github.com/folio-org/mod-orders-storage
https://www.baeldung.com/java-passing-method-parameter

Screenshots (if applicable)

If this pull request involves any visual changes or new features, consider including screenshots or GIFs to illustrate the changes.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[psmagin]

It was agreed that custom-field work will not be merged into the master until it is tested for performance.

[AlexanderSambale]

It was agreed that custom-field work will not be merged into the master until it is tested for performance.

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FOLIJET/pages/1104609332/Custom+Fields+Support+for+Inventory+Entities+Items+Holdings+Instances?focusedCommentId=1129054240

@psmagin
Just to make it clear, if I understood you correctly:

• We should test the performance when you delete or update an instance of a custom field which could potentially update many item records, if they reference the custom field.
• We will make a new branch from here and add additional performance tests.
• What metrics would you use to measure the performance? What would be an acceptable performance? How many items would you want to test? Is there something to compare to?

[psmagin]

@AlexanderSambale

We should test the performance when you delete or update an instance of a custom field which could potentially update many item records, if they reference the custom field.

Correct

We will make a new branch from here and add additional performance tests.

Correct

What metrics would you use to measure the performance?

Execution time, database load.

What would be an acceptable performance?

This should be defined by the PO, but it must definitely be fast enough not to affect other flows (such as data import, bulk update, etc.).

How many items would you want to test?

I would expect tests to run on a bugfest-like dataset with about 8M items. It’s possible that each item could reference the same custom field.

Is there something to compare to?

Yes. There are several performance tests for data import and bulk update. You could reach out to the PTF team, who usually measure performance, and ask for their assistance with this.

[github-actions]

JSON Schema Changes (folio-org/mod-inventory-storage)

• Base: 2c09255eb381baf5ba439636b86a39b84ff2cf32
• Head: 08689cdc209e1b4c3edaa1f1c79f819da867fabf

Changed files

Status	File (HEAD)
Added	ramls/schemas/common/custom_fields.json
Modified	ramls/schemas/item-storage/item.json

Diffs (normalized first, fallback to raw if empty)

ramls/schemas/common/custom_fields.json

--- ramls/schemas/common/custom_fields.json (base)
+++ ramls/schemas/common/custom_fields.json (head)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Object that contains custom field",
+  "javaName": "CustomFields",
+  "type": "object"
+}

ramls/schemas/item-storage/item.json

--- ramls/schemas/item-storage/item.json (base)
+++ ramls/schemas/item-storage/item.json (head)
@@ -49,6 +49,11 @@
       "description": "Copy number is the piece identifier. The copy number reflects if the library has a copy of a single-volume monograph; one copy of a multi-volume, (e.g. Copy 1, or C.7.)",
       "type": "string"
     },
+    "customFields": {
+      "$ref": "../common/custom_fields.json",
+      "description": "Object that contains custom fields",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
     "descriptionOfPieces": {
       "description": "Description of item pieces.",
       "type": "string"

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud