RFC 089: correct the FOLIO item source system name to folio-item - #167
Merged
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
kenoir
approved these changes
Aug 21, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Preview
What does this change?
Closes wellcomecollection/platform#6538, together with the prototype-side change in
location-movement-control-docs.The catalogue pipeline names the FOLIO item identifier
folio-item. RFC 089 saidfolio-item-idin four places. That name is a URL path segment, so a consumer following the RFC would call/v1/identifiers/by-source/folio-item-id/{uuid}against a registry storingfolio-itemand get a 404 indistinguishable from a genuine "no such identifier".The pipeline is already emitting the correct value in both implementations, so the decision recorded on the issue is to amend the documentation rather than change the pipeline, which would mean rewriting rows rather than editing prose.
All four occurrences are prose about registry contents and pipeline sequencing (lines 337, 388, 390 and 476). No decisions change, and
openapi.yamland the generatedopenapi.mdnever contained the wrong spelling, so the contract is untouched.The issue also asks whether any other source system name in RFC 089 disagrees with
catalogue-pipeline'sIdentifierType.scala. None does: the RFC names three, and with this change all three match,sierra-system-number(line 45),folio-instance(line 50) andfolio-item(line 55).How to test
Read the diff, and check the four paragraphs still read correctly rather than just that the string changed. The authority for the name is
catalogue-pipeline/common/internal_model/src/main/scala/weco/catalogue/internal_model/identifiers/IdentifierType.scala:55, and the Python side sets the same value incatalogue_graph/src/adapters/transformers/builders/folio_work_builder.py.Both repo CI checks pass locally:
validate_rfc.pyon the changed README, andcreate_table_summary.py --check-readme.How can we measure success?
Not applicable: the measure is that one spelling now appears across the RFC, the prototype and the pipeline, which the diff shows directly.
Have we considered potential risks?
Not applicable beyond the change itself: this is prose in a merged RFC, with no runtime or deployment surface.