-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Who will initiate the final ToR exchange process? #3
Comments
Among our customers, the first scenario is the most common, but also other scenarios like the 2nd one or initiated by the sending coordinator and the receiving coordinator accessing the sending web app are common practice |
What do you mean exactly? If I understood you correctly, this would require the receiving coordinator to have a user account on the Sending Web App? In general, we could also support both of these options, if need be. We could have two separate flags in the Outgoing Mobility object:
The Sending Web App could notify the sending coordinator if any of these flags was changed. |
BTW, initially I wanted this flag to be present in the ToR itself, but now it seems more appropriate to move it to the Outgoing Mobility entity and allow Receiving Web App to modify it via Ougoing Mobility Remote Update API. |
sometimes they get user based access, most of the time they get an email with a link and are authorized via access tokens i also don't think that we should restrict this to a single scenario |
I agree that we should not restrict. We should try to design the systme so that it can pass information between HEIs. The main flow, as we know is the following. Some flows are clear regarding who initiates but some will have variance. nomination ( variations on who intiiates and who signs) |
To sum up - all three parties should be allowed to initiate this exchange.
This last one is trickier. In EWP, we don't encourage solutions involving receiving coordinators accessing Sending Web Apps. But I guess we could allow such requests to be submitted via the Outgoing Mobility Remote Update API. Solution 1: Add a new "history entry"This API is still in draft version, but it already allows receiving coordinators to edit various properties of the Outgoing Mobility object by adding new "history entries" to its "The receiving coordinator has indicated that the Transcript of Records associated with this mobility has been recently modified and the sending institution should refresh it." Once such entry is added, the Sending Web App can either notify its sending coordinator on the fact, or it can refresh the ToR itself. Solution 2: Add a new parameter to the Remote Update APIHaving a history of such requests seems a good feature for me, but if guys from @erasmus-without-paper/wp3 don't agree, we could also add a separate parameter to the Outgoing Mobility Remote Update API for that. |
Solution 3: The CNR API solutionIt's worth noting that initially I was hoping that we will achieve this functionality by means of a CNR API - the Receiving Web App would notify the Sending Web App about every change in the Transcript of Records, so that the Sending Web App would always be able to have a fresh copy of it (and there will be no reason to manually initiate such exchanges, ever). However, after some thought I'm afraid that sending such notifications would be quite hard. Transcripts of Records are complex beasts. There is a huge amount of triggers which would need to be watched in order for such notifications to work properly. So we would need a manual way of doing this either way. |
As I have indicated here (and during the discussions in Warsaw), I currently believe that Solution 1 is the way to go. |
In the current Outgoing Mobilities API, there is no timeline anymore, so Solution 1 is no longer possible. Solutions 2 and 3 are still doable.
|
No one commented, but it's time to choose. I will describe solution 3 in the specs. |
First thing to do here is to move parts of the current |
Next, we need to add a new |
What request parameters should the If we want to make it similar to the Since this API is being served by the receiving HEI (as opposed to the Outgoing Mobilities API being served by the sending HEI), the roles are interchanged:
|
These issues still need to be specified clearly:
Solution 3aI think that we need an additional "ready for recognition" boolean flag for each ToR. If we add such a flag, then it would be okay to answer the above questions as such:
@erasmus-without-paper/all-members |
Solution 3b
|
I'm not sure about the planned_arrival_after parameter. In context of this thread and in context of possible use of ToRs without mobility context, it seems to be good idea to skip this parameter. However, wouldn't it be hard for client to get "this year ToRs" without this parameter? Especially if some student will visit the same HEI twice. The second thing is that in Outgoing Mobilities API, the modified_since parameter can be ignored by the server. Would you like to allow this for ToRs as well? They are much bigger than mobility responses. |
Solution 3b seems easier and is enough for us. |
In context of
If we want this parameter to stay, then we need to decide if ToRs for which As to the We could add an extra element in |
I don't know. Probably we will ask for ToRs at the end of the arrival, so if only server stores this data, at this time it should be known. Maybe it would be better to choose the same rule as in Outgoing Mobilities.
I don't think so. As the client side developer I would like to have some filter (date or didactic cycle) that would be known for every ToR and not ignored by the server. This filter should allow me to filter "current" ToRs. We have generation date, but I'm afraid that it's too "technical". Maybe some servers will generate ToRs on demand or regenerate them from some reason. |
Okay. 3b it is then.
We didn't choose any rule in Outgoing Mobilities yet.
BTW, the |
We agree with the 3b solution -> CNR and only publish when ready for recognition. |
The current version of the document proposed two contradicting flows of data in regard to the final exchange of ToR (after mobility). Both of these flows are described here:
We need to pick - either option 1 or option 2. Or, devise some different option.
My personal estimate is that option 1 is a much safer choice of these two.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: