Pairing Only Works With `Jurisdiction Tax Lot ID`

[axelstudios]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Importing records with both Property and Tax Lot columns will only pair if one of the Tax Lot columns is Jurisdiction Tax Lot ID. Otherwise, the records will lose their relationship. This seems unintuitive.

Describe the solution you'd like A single row in an import file with both Property and Tax Lot columns should result in a paired record.

Actual Behavior Pairing only happens when Jurisdiction Tax Lot ID is mapped.

Steps to Reproduce Import the following csv files, mapping the columns to the Property and Tax Lot inventory types respectively:

1. ✅ The property and taxlot will pair as expected:

   PM Property ID	Jurisdiction Tax Lot ID
   P1	J1

2. ❌ The property and taxlot will NOT be paired:

   PM Property ID	Custom ID 1
   P2	C2

3. ❌ The property and taxlot will NOT be paired:

   PM Property ID	Address Line 1
   P3	3 Main St

Or, simply import covered-buildings-sample.csv and map using the Tax Lot field Custom ID 1 instead of Jurisdiction Tax Lot ID.

[axelstudios]

@RDmitchell Right - but after talking with @nllong this is working as expected. Apparently we only pair records on import, even if they come from the same spreadsheet row, if Jurisdiction Tax Lot ID is one of the mapped columns. It feels a little unintuitive to me, but this isn't technically a bug or regression so I'm going to change it to a feature request

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity within 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity within 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity within 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[haneslinger]

@kflemin This is a feature request, should it be on this board?

[kflemin]

@nllong, thoughts on this?

[nllong]

Yeah, this is by design. If we want to make pairing more flexible, then we should ask for funding to do it. It is a complicated task and probably should happen outside of the "bug fix" quarter.

[RDmitchell]

We might want to query BEAM and see if they have come across the need for this pairing in their work with various jurisdictions.

I think it would probably be a good idea to allow more pairings, but these days, not that many jurisdictions are using Tax Assessor data, and if they are, they will have some sort of ID from that data.

So I would say lets see if the use case exists in the user base (or potential user base) before deciding to implement this.

[nllong]

if there is a consensus to enable more flexible pairings, then let's do it! Yes, let's ask BEAM.

[kflemin]

Better documentation would solve this issue. Not fixing for now.

Document this on the pairing page.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity within 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.