-
Type: Improvement
-
Status: Done (View Workflow)
-
Priority: Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: CFA 2020R1
-
Fix Version/s: CFA 2020R1
-
Component/s: OrderGuide
-
Labels:
-
Source Code ID(s):
As an above store admin who works with the order guide I want to be able to set up, at the same time, a set of rules to introduce an item to a growing number of entities so that I don't have to remember to come back in and add more stores every two weeks
Use case
- When rolling out a test item, the rollout typically follows a pattern like this:
- Week 1 - Sell at restaurants in an Operator Team (10-20 restaurants) e.g. ATL-Forsyth/Fulton
- Week 3 - Expand at sell to restaurants Market (up to 100 restaurants) e.g. Atlanta, GA
- Week 6 - Expand at sell to restaurants in a Region (100's of restaurants) e.g. Southeast Region
- Week 12 - Sell at ALL stores (2,200+ restaurants) e.g. United Sates
Example of rules:
Rule Type | Rule | Filter | Name | Start Date | End Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zone | Include | Location - OperatorTeamName | ATL-Forsyth/Fulton | 3/17/20 | |
Zone | Include | Location - MarketName | Atlanta, GA | 3/31/20 | |
Zone | Include | Location - RegionName | Southeast Region | 4/21/20 | |
Zone | Include | Location - CountryName | United States | 6/16/20 |
Problem
The problem is that when these rules are configured at one time, with the restaurant being present in all of the zones. When applied, the system appears to be taking the greatest introduction date (of any of the zones) and using that as the start date.
So in this case, stores in Alpharetta, who should be in the pilot, starting 3/17, are not able to order the item until 6/16, which is the greatest introduction date.
History
I found a document that we used when designing the rules engine (Tab 2 - Date Rules - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16qGhLmsG0yGnQPiefSR2LXTLGzr4YCN6EjhQKsMvhbc/edit#gid=341194458)
We had lots of discussion about which dates to use and decided that the greatest of the introduction dates was the one to go with, the most restrictive, but it looks like when designing (based on the doc) that we only took into account one rule. We didn't take into account multiple rules, that cover the same restaurant with different start/introduction dates, or if we talked about it, it was an oversight!
Suggestion
When evaluating which introduction date to use VI vs Rule, and there are multiple introduction dates that could apply to an entity, we should user the lesser of all of the Rule Introduction dates.
- Current state:
- VI vs Rule = Use the Greater of the two introduction dates
- Future State
- VI vs Multiple Rules = By entity, determine which rule offers the lowest of all the introduction dates, that are greater than the introduction date of the VI and use that value when creating/updating the VEI
Acceptance Criteria
- Confirm when a test item is introduced using rules created in the manner identified above, one store in multiple zones each with different start dates, that the item is made available using the soonest start date
- Confirm when a test item is introduced using a combination of Restaurant and Zone rules, created in the manner identified above, one store impacted with rules that each have different start dates, that the item is made available using the soonest start date (either from the restaurant or zone rule)
- Confirm when a restaurant moves from vendor A to vendor B, this date logic is respected for the new VEI's
- Confirm when a new restaurant is created, the rules are applied correctly with respect to the soonest start date
- Clones
-
CFAMX-8818 InFORM Order Guide - Use Earliest Rule Introduction date
- Done
- is blocked by
-
CFAMX-9205 Clone 2020R1 - Use Vendor Item Intro Date When There's An Include Rule With an Earlier Intro Date
- Done
- relates to
-
CFAMX-8816 InFORM Order Guide - Create VEI's for Exclude Rules
- Done
-
CFAMX-996 Caner - Assign Rules from UI
- Closed