| 17:16 |
eby |
stop using opac.hold_notify |
| 17:16 |
eby |
and was general consensus in the room that per hold notify makes no sense and causes more issues |
| 17:17 |
eby |
with updating the hold settings on patron change, etc |
| 17:17 |
jeff |
also, I've had conversations here and elsewhere regarding removing some/all per-hold notification options. found some with this search: http://irc.evergreen-ils.org/evergreen/search/?nick=jeff&q=carrier |
| 17:17 |
Dyrcona |
Well. per hold notify makes a certain sense, but I'll agree it causes enough confusion to outweigh its usefulness. |
| 17:17 |
jeff |
stop using opac.hold_notify? hrm. |
| 17:19 |
eby |
well i think they were going for more clear not just hold related but when there was discussion there were multiple that wanted hold / overdue / courtesy broken out |
| 15:12 |
pinesol |
News from commits: Docs: adding 3.13 to site.yml <https://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commitdiff;h=3a58d1c6ea1e89bb5914d768f36200a6195d7c2a> |
| 15:20 |
|
cbrown-isl joined #evergreen |
| 16:22 |
mmorgan |
For those that are using a true sms solution for text message, how have you dealt with hiding/removing the sms carrier option from the client and opac? |
| 16:26 |
jeff |
less of an issue for us since we also hide per-hold notification methods, and we use our own patron-facing discovery layer and app. |
| 16:26 |
jeff |
(and we don't rely on A/T for the automated text or phone call hold notifications -- just email) |
| 16:28 |
jeff |
since this means our org unit setting for sms.enable isn't set to TRUE, we don't have to go out of our way to hide anything, just go out of our way to show a few things. |
| 16:28 |
jeff |
like the "sms" notification pref in the user editor. |
| 16:29 |
jeff |
we'd do it slightly differently now, I suspect. |
| 16:30 |
jeff |
I think Stompro's branch hides the carrier while still using A/T and the sms.enable org unit setting. |
| 16:31 |
|
rlefaive joined #evergreen |
| 16:33 |
mmorgan |
I've just started looking at Josh's branch, we are still using action triggers. |
| 16:49 |
jeff |
mmorgan: what provider are you experimenting with? Twilio, Flowroute, or something else? |
| 12:31 |
jeff |
we spend on average a little over $0.01/message to not have to worry about it. |
| 12:38 |
Bmagic |
ok, it was a differenting sending address. haha. The two accounts were attached to two different org units, and the test template walks up the org tree to find an accosiated email address, and found one that isn't allowed to sen through our relay. Mystery solved |
| 12:38 |
Bmagic |
phew, I was losing my mind |
| 12:39 |
jeff |
phew. next time, keep the above in mind also. :-) |
| 12:40 |
jeff |
my understanding is that time of day can also influence carrier SMTP to SMS gateways. |
| 12:45 |
jeff |
(though that might be a proxy for total inbound volume (which we can't observe) following a day/night cycle) |
| 12:48 |
jeff |
10,000 messages a month can be a lot easier to pay for than 1,000,000 messages a month, but I suspect most libraries can reduce the number of messages as well. |
| 12:49 |
Bmagic |
right, I was thinking along those lines. Like "ok the first one sent to the same address, maybe the second one was denied because the relay was getting too many for the same destination in a short period" |
| 12:49 |
jeff |
This might be a good conference presentation, rather than an IRC monologue. Looks like I might still have time to write one up. :-) |
| 12:50 |
jeff |
Bmagic: yeah, and it was resetting by the time you tried again from the first address, etc... |
| 15:47 |
Dyrcona |
So far, I've got two that failed the hooks lookup to create the AutorenewNotify events. I'm running the daily events along with the 2-day courtesy notices because they often overlap. |
| 15:49 |
Dyrcona |
I think I'll set it up tomorrow so that 1 vm is configured with parallel reactors/collectors and the other not. Then, I'll put the production crontab in place to run these events and see what happens for a few days. |
| 16:00 |
Dyrcona |
Unrelated: I'm starting to rethink many things that I thought were a good idea at the time, like letting users specify per hold email and SMS notification addresses. We get a few tickets now and then from staff who don't understand how they get bounce emails for addresses not in the patron record. |
| 16:03 |
jeff |
per-hold email addresses aren't a thing that I'm aware of. |
| 16:04 |
jeff |
email notification on holds is a boolean per-hold, but not a text field. |
| 16:04 |
jeff |
you can have a different phone number per hold and a different text number (AND different carrier) per hold, though. |
| 16:05 |
jeff |
(we do none of that) |
| 16:09 |
Dyrcona |
The ticket is about the bounce from a text. We recently added real addresses as the senders of texts through email to SMS gateway, because it seems to help. |
| 16:10 |
Dyrcona |
And, jeff, you're right. I should have looked it up before spouting off in channel, but different numbers seemed like a good idea once. Now, I think the cons outweigh the pros. |
| 16:58 |
|
smayo joined #evergreen |
| 13:26 |
jvwoolf |
mmorgan: Yeah, that seems likely |
| 13:26 |
jvwoolf |
mmorgan++ |
| 13:27 |
* mmorgan |
needs to run away for a bit, but it would be great to add heat to that! |
| 14:10 |
jeff |
Hrm. "place hold for this staff account" seems to be working for me in a 3.7.2 test system, but not when I try to place the hold for my 'normal' patron. Place Hold(s) button isn't enabled. |
| 14:10 |
* jeff |
looks |
| 14:32 |
jeff |
ah, users with sms hold notification enabled but no carrier/etc. drat. we'll have to figure a solution there. |
| 14:33 |
jeff |
we might just start using a different opt-in user setting, but that might change too many other things. |
| 14:44 |
|
rjackson_isl_hom joined #evergreen |
| 17:04 |
|
mmorgan left #evergreen |
| 18:01 |
pinesol |
News from qatests: Testing Success <http://testing.evergreen-ils.org/~live> |
| 13:11 |
jeff |
We've not encountered issues with SMS deliverability so far (knock on wood). |
| 13:13 |
mmorgan |
Thanks for the input, helps as we look for a solution. |
| 13:13 |
mmorgan |
Dyrcona++ jeff++ alynn26_away++ |
| 13:28 |
jeff |
We've sent about 5,500 messages in the last 30 days. Our last "normal" month was probably February. |
| 13:29 |
|
jihpringle joined #evergreen |
| 13:29 |
jeff |
So looking at Feb, we had about 7300 messages and paid about $63. |
| 13:30 |
jeff |
The pricing went up a little bit with Verizon's introduction of additional fees. Carrier fees were about $9 of that $63. |
| 13:30 |
agoben |
jeff, what all notices do you send that way? And what's your total service population? |
| 13:31 |
jeff |
service area population is around 90,000 |
| 13:31 |
jeff |
and we're sending opt-in SMS for hold available and for items due (courtesy and overdue) |
| 13:33 |
jeff |
So we don't need to pay for a shortcode. |
| 13:34 |
agoben |
Yeah, assuming a similar scale, we'd be looking at well over 100K a month, so guessing we wouldn't be so lucky |
| 13:34 |
agoben |
(Messages, that is) |
| 13:35 |
jeff |
yeah, you'd be starting at $750/mo before carrier charges (Verizon and US Cellular at the moment) |
| 13:36 |
agoben |
mmhmm |
| 13:41 |
Dyrcona |
We're at 151K per month. |
| 13:41 |
Dyrcona |
Assuming February is "normal" 'cause we're way down since. |
| 15:28 |
jeff |
Ah. *nod* |
| 15:28 |
jeff |
Less flat. |
| 15:28 |
csharp |
we've chased our tail more than once trying to add carriers for some of these off-brand cellular companies (and some more well-known ones) |
| 15:29 |
jeff |
More "not without official documentation from the carrier in question" and perhaps even "a patron willin to test" :-) |
| 15:29 |
jeff |
Which in some cases reduces/simplifies to "No." |
| 15:30 |
csharp |
I guess that's the other nuance that de-flattens my "no" - the patron is welcome to request that information of the carrier :-) |
| 15:31 |
jeff |
I'm pretty sure I've made my strong feelings about this known, but in case anyone's interested in trying the "eliminate the email to text gateways" approach, I'd be interested in helping / collaborating. :-) |
| 15:31 |
jeff |
I think that Stompro is on that short list. |
| 15:43 |
jeff |
issue gets tricky when you get up to volume, though. |
| 15:43 |
Bmagic |
issues with their throttle? |
| 15:44 |
Bmagic |
API requests / minute or something like that? |
| 15:44 |
jeff |
csharp: good to know an approximation. let me think about that a bit... |
| 15:46 |
jeff |
csharp: can you tell how many unique patrons or how many unique numbers? |
| 15:49 |
jeff |
Bmagic: that and other things. you can send about a message per second as long as you're paying for it. higher volume starts to get into issues not only of cost, but also carriers blocking / requiring you to use a shortcode, pay carrier-specific additional rates, etc. |
| 15:50 |
Bmagic |
I see |
| 15:50 |
jeff |
several paragraphs that i'm not going to type with thumbs right now... :-) |
| 15:51 |
Bmagic |
No worries! Just curious. I don't think our consortium will want to pony up the money, but in case they do.... |
| 17:15 |
miker |
I'm not saying I'd argue for the same designs today ... but it's not as slap-dash as it might seem in the modern world ;) |
| 17:16 |
kmlussier |
Yes, and I'm not necessarily arguing that we keep it either. I honestly want to hear from people at the circ desk how they see people using it. |
| 17:16 |
miker |
kmlussier: right, that's a more realistic version of my vacation scenario ... especially the fiction of me taking a 2-week vacation ;) |
| 17:16 |
jeff |
miker: arguably per-hold text carrier was something done out of convenience and didn't have a supporting background use case, but i could be wrong on that one. :-) |
| 17:16 |
kmlussier |
miker: I took a 2-week vacation back in 2002. It was splendid! |
| 17:17 |
miker |
jeff: no, you're right about sms, I think |
| 17:17 |
kmlussier |
jeff: We specifically asked that it be per-hold just as phone notifications were. |
| 11:16 |
Dyrcona |
Well, no O/S for servers. We get the O/S pre-installed for workstations. |
| 11:25 |
|
maryj joined #evergreen |
| 11:31 |
|
Christineb joined #evergreen |
| 11:36 |
jeff |
ah. different REST endpoint, different status messages. Twilio was doing the right thing and not using a new status value on messages created via the older endpoint. |
| 11:36 |
jeff |
Good to know! |
| 11:37 |
jeff |
previously all i had was "sent", meaning "The message was sent to the nearest upstream carrier, and that carrier accepted the message." |
| 11:37 |
jeff |
now the majority are "delivered", meaning "Twilio has received confirmation of message delivery from the upstream carrier, and, where available, the destination handset." |
| 11:37 |
jeff |
the slightly-less-specific "sent" still exists, meaning "The message was successfully accepted by the nearest upstream carrier." |
| 12:01 |
|
bmills joined #evergreen |
| 12:26 |
|
kitteh_ joined #evergreen |
| 12:31 |
|
mmorgan1 joined #evergreen |
| 15:39 |
jeff |
docs say "status of undelivered will still be charged", but the API call shows a cost of null USD :-) |
| 15:40 |
tsbere |
jeff: Undelivered to a PITA carrier = charged. Undelivered to a nice carrier = no charge? |
| 15:40 |
tsbere |
Possibly "undelivered to no carrier" not being charged... |
| 15:41 |
jeff |
"failed" is "the carrier didn't even accept this" |
| 15:41 |
jeff |
"undelivered" is "the carrier accepted this but we didn't get a confirmation that it was delivered" |
| 15:41 |
* tsbere |
also has several landlines in his text message history on his phone |
| 15:41 |
jeff |
phone phones are messy. some things are less messy with something like twilio. |
| 15:43 |
jeff |
i still have a price of null after several minutes of it being in a status of "undelivered" (as opposed to "queued" which I expect to not have a price yet) :-) |
| 15:44 |
tsbere |
jeff: What carrier did you attempt to send to? |
| 15:45 |
jeff |
a voip provider called Jive, and the local cable company (who also does voip phones), Charter/Spectrum |
| 15:45 |
jeff |
I do know that some landline carriers can/will forward SMS to landlines via some kind of voice relay. I don't have personal experience with that. |
| 15:45 |
tsbere |
Well, I know that the local cable company here not only does phones, but also text messaging for those phones. Though they usually want you to install an app on your smartphone to use that part... |
| 15:46 |
tsbere |
And at least one VOIP company in the area has text messaging as well, for that matter. But other "landline" providers in the area don't. |
| 15:47 |
Bmagic |
What would cause a transaction to stay open after it was checked in ($0 fines on the circ however it was overdue long enough to get marked lost) ? |
| 12:40 |
jeff |
Through the Looking Glass API |
| 12:40 |
RoganH |
Well known for it's time functions being heavily buggy, hence causing the rabbit's issues with getting anywhere on time. |
| 12:47 |
bshum |
Bmagic: mllewellyn might know how we defined the Playaway in our system. I know it's a local definition that she set up during our upgrade to 2.6. |
| 12:53 |
jeff |
heh. from the playawaysPDF.pdf file linked above: ``In conclusion, it is hoped that RDA will make the question moot with its clear separation of content and carrier.'' |
| 13:01 |
bshum |
dbs: FYI, I'm going to follow your lead from the other day in IRC as far as directing potential OPW applicants to the resources you mentioned as a starting point. |
| 13:02 |
bshum |
gmcharlt: I'm getting some applicants poking me directly on the selfcheck project too, but have to pull together something for that too. |
| 13:02 |
berick |
bshum: mind re-sharing said resources here? |