Owner ID

Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or
should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be
the current user in charge of the case?

Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took
over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for
any info or advice.

Hi Russell,

··· On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen wrote:

Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or
should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be
the current user in charge of the case?

Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took
over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for
any info or advice.

This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we added
case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case to
belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it
could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for
reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important
when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates
from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over
the air restore of a user’s data.

Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or
(obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards
compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by
whatever is in the user_id property.

Cory

So we can expect that owner id will always have some value when case
information is forwarded to us? Right now I just get an
element, since the owner id had no value, but the element is still
forwarded over with the case block.

··· On Apr 9, 3:42 pm, Cory Zue wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen wrote: > > Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or > > should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be > > the current user in charge of the case? > > > Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took > > over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for > > any info or advice. > > This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we added > case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case to > belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it > could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for > reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important > when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates > from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over > the air restore of a user's data. > > Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or > (obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards > compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by > whatever is in the user_id property. > > Cory

So we can expect that owner id will always have some value when case
information is forwarded to us? Right now I just get an
element, since the owner id had no value, but the element is still
forwarded over with the case block.

Ah. Yes the block will always be there, but for case forwarding it will be
whatever is in the owner_id property of the case, which could be empty, as
you’re observing. When I said cases default to being owned by the user I
meant that CommCare will fall back to the user_id property when determining
if a case should be synced to a user’s phone.

Cory

··· On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Russell Gillen wrote:

On Apr 9, 3:42 pm, Cory Zue c...@dimagi.com wrote:

Hi Russell,

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen rhgil...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or
should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be
the current user in charge of the case?

Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took
over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for
any info or advice.

This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we added
case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case to
belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it
could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for
reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most
important
when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates
from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over
the air restore of a user’s data.

Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or
(obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards
compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by
whatever is in the user_id property.

Cory

I have a follow-up question related to case ownership.

On Monday, April 9, Cory Zue wrote: “Owner ID was introduced as a concept
when we added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to
allow a case to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group
id) so that it could be shared across users. However, you can also use the
field for reassignment, as your use case would cover

We’re starting to bump into scenarios where a number of clients (and their
cases) need to be transfered between CHWs. In our case, this is being done
to reduce the workload of particular CHWs and we would like to transfer(ie.
not share) cases. I don’t believe the ‘case transfer’ scenario is
supported yet in CCHQ, right? If not, do you know if/when such
functionality may be supported and what version dependencies may be
involved? (ie. will it depend on CC 2.0)

Thanks, Ray

··· On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen wrote: > >> Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or >> should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be >> the current user in charge of the case? >> >> Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took >> over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for >> any info or advice. >> > > This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we added > case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case to > belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it > could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for > reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important > when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates > from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over > the air restore of a user's data. > > Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or > (obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards > compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by > whatever is in the user_id property. > > Cory >

Ray,

You’re correct that currently this isn’t supported.

Would the desired use case be to reassign the case to a different user on
the phone
, or on HQ? In theory if you were operating in sync mode (which
you’d need to be for the user to be removed from the phone) we could send a
fixture to the phones containing all of the registered users, and the case
reassignment could be done on the phone.

Otherwise, Danny or Cory could give you an estimate for when we think case
reassignment might be ready on HQ.

-Clayton

··· On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Ray Brunsting wrote:

I have a follow-up question related to case ownership.

On Monday, April 9, Cory Zue wrote: “Owner ID was introduced as a concept
when we added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to
allow a case to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group
id) so that it could be shared across users. However, you can also use
the field for reassignment, as your use case would cover

We’re starting to bump into scenarios where a number of clients (and their
cases) need to be transfered between CHWs. In our case, this is being done
to reduce the workload of particular CHWs and we would like to transfer(ie.
not share) cases. I don’t believe the ‘case transfer’ scenario is
supported yet in CCHQ, right? If not, do you know if/when such
functionality may be supported and what version dependencies may be
involved? (ie. will it depend on CC 2.0)

Thanks, Ray

On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote:

Hi Russell,

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen rhgillen@gmail.comwrote:

Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or
should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be
the current user in charge of the case?

Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took
over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for
any info or advice.

This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we added
case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case to
belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it
could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for
reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important
when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates
from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over
the air restore of a user’s data.

Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or
(obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards
compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by
whatever is in the user_id property.

Cory

Hi Clayton,

The desired use case would be to handle the reassignment on HQ…ideally,
by selecting a subset of cases owned by one CHW and a new owner for the
selected cases.

If it’s possible to handle the transfer via xform submissions, we may
consider doing that.

Thanks, Ray

··· On Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:13:38 AM UTC-4, Clayton Sims wrote: > > Ray, > > You're correct that currently this isn't supported. > > Would the desired use case be to reassign the case to a different user _on > the phone_, or on HQ? In theory if you were operating in sync mode (which > you'd need to be for the user to be removed from the phone) we could send a > fixture to the phones containing all of the registered users, and the case > reassignment could be done on the phone. > > Otherwise, Danny or Cory could give you an estimate for when we think case > reassignment might be ready on HQ. > > -Clayton > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Ray Brunsting wrote: > >> I have a follow-up question related to case ownership. >> >> On Monday, April 9, Cory Zue wrote: "Owner ID was introduced as a concept >> when we added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to >> allow a case to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group >> id) so that it could be shared across users. *However, you can also use >> the field for reassignment, as your use case would cover*" >> >> We're starting to bump into scenarios where a number of clients (and >> their cases) need to be transfered between CHWs. In our case, this is being >> done to reduce the workload of particular CHWs and we would like to * >> transfer* (ie. *not* share) cases. I don't believe the 'case transfer' >> scenario is supported yet in CCHQ, right? If not, do you know if/when such >> functionality may be supported and what version dependencies may be >> involved? (ie. will it depend on CC 2.0) >> >> Thanks, Ray >> >> >> On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote: >>> >>> Hi Russell, >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or >>>> should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be >>>> the current user in charge of the case? >>>> >>>> Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took >>>> over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for >>>> any info or advice. >>>> >>> >>> This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we added >>> case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case to >>> belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it >>> could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for >>> reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important >>> when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates >>> from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over >>> the air restore of a user's data. >>> >>> Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or >>> (obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards >>> compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by >>> whatever is in the user_id property. >>> >>> Cory >>> >> >

Ray,

If the ideal use case is HQ, that actually seems a bit easier, Danny and
Cory can provide a better idea of when that might be possible.

-Clayton

··· On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Ray Brunsting wrote:

Hi Clayton,

The desired use case would be to handle the reassignment on HQ…ideally,
by selecting a subset of cases owned by one CHW and a new owner for the
selected cases.

If it’s possible to handle the transfer via xform submissions, we may
consider doing that.

Thanks, Ray

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:13:38 AM UTC-4, Clayton Sims wrote:

Ray,

You’re correct that currently this isn’t supported.

Would the desired use case be to reassign the case to a different user
on the phone, or on HQ? In theory if you were operating in sync mode
(which you’d need to be for the user to be removed from the phone) we could
send a fixture to the phones containing all of the registered users, and
the case reassignment could be done on the phone.

Otherwise, Danny or Cory could give you an estimate for when we think
case reassignment might be ready on HQ.

-Clayton

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Ray Brunsting ray@tula.org wrote:

I have a follow-up question related to case ownership.

On Monday, April 9, Cory Zue wrote: “Owner ID was introduced as a
concept when we added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is
to allow a case to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the
group id) so that it could be shared across users. However, you can
also use the field for reassignment, as your use case would cover

We’re starting to bump into scenarios where a number of clients (and
their cases) need to be transfered between CHWs. In our case, this is being
done to reduce the workload of particular CHWs and we would like to *
transfer* (ie. not share) cases. I don’t believe the 'case transfer’
scenario is supported yet in CCHQ, right? If not, do you know if/when such
functionality may be supported and what version dependencies may be
involved? (ie. will it depend on CC 2.0)

Thanks, Ray

On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote:

Hi Russell,

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen rhgillen@gmail.comwrote:

Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or
should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be
the current user in charge of the case?

Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took
over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for
any info or advice.

This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we added
case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case to
belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it
could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for
reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important
when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates
from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over
the air restore of a user’s data.

Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or
(obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards
compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by
whatever is in the user_id property.

Cory

Hey Ray,

If the ideal use case is HQ, that actually seems a bit easier, Danny and
Cory can provide a better idea of when that might be possible.

Sorry to be a bit delayed - we’ve been having some discussions on our side
about how hard this will be to implement and when we can find time to work
on it. I suspect we’ll have something in place in the next month (quite
possibly sooner) but if other things come up it could end up getting pushed
back.

Cory

··· On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Clayton Sims wrote:

-Clayton

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Ray Brunsting ray@tula.org wrote:

Hi Clayton,

The desired use case would be to handle the reassignment on
HQ…ideally, by selecting a subset of cases owned by one CHW and a new
owner for the selected cases.

If it’s possible to handle the transfer via xform submissions, we may
consider doing that.

Thanks, Ray

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:13:38 AM UTC-4, Clayton Sims wrote:

Ray,

You’re correct that currently this isn’t supported.

Would the desired use case be to reassign the case to a different user
on the phone, or on HQ? In theory if you were operating in sync mode
(which you’d need to be for the user to be removed from the phone) we could
send a fixture to the phones containing all of the registered users, and
the case reassignment could be done on the phone.

Otherwise, Danny or Cory could give you an estimate for when we think
case reassignment might be ready on HQ.

-Clayton

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Ray Brunsting ray@tula.org wrote:

I have a follow-up question related to case ownership.

On Monday, April 9, Cory Zue wrote: “Owner ID was introduced as a
concept when we added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is
to allow a case to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the
group id) so that it could be shared across users. However, you can
also use the field for reassignment, as your use case would cover

We’re starting to bump into scenarios where a number of clients (and
their cases) need to be transfered between CHWs. In our case, this is being
done to reduce the workload of particular CHWs and we would like to *
transfer* (ie. not share) cases. I don’t believe the ‘case
transfer’ scenario is supported yet in CCHQ, right? If not, do you know
if/when such functionality may be supported and what version dependencies
may be involved? (ie. will it depend on CC 2.0)

Thanks, Ray

On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote:

Hi Russell,

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen rhgillen@gmail.comwrote:

Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or
should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be
the current user in charge of the case?

Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 took
over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for
any info or advice.

This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we
added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case
to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it
could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for
reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important
when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates
from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over
the air restore of a user’s data.

Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or
(obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards
compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by
whatever is in the user_id property.

Cory

Cory wrote: “I suspect we’ll have something in place in the next month
(quite possibly sooner) but if other things come up it could end up getting
pushed back
.”

Perfect. Thanks!

Ray

··· On Monday, May 7, 2012 12:16:42 AM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote: > > Hey Ray, > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Clayton Sims wrote: > >> If the ideal use case is HQ, that actually seems a bit easier, Danny and >> Cory can provide a better idea of when that might be possible. >> > > Sorry to be a bit delayed - we've been having some discussions on our side > about how hard this will be to implement and when we can find time to work > on it. I suspect we'll have something in place in the next month (quite > possibly sooner) but if other things come up it could end up getting pushed > back. > > Cory > > >> >> -Clayton >> >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Ray Brunsting wrote: >> >>> Hi Clayton, >>> >>> The desired use case would be to handle the reassignment on >>> HQ....ideally, by selecting a subset of cases owned by one CHW and a new >>> owner for the selected cases. >>> >>> If it's possible to handle the transfer via xform submissions, we may >>> consider doing that. >>> >>> Thanks, Ray >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:13:38 AM UTC-4, Clayton Sims wrote: >>>> >>>> Ray, >>>> >>>> You're correct that currently this isn't supported. >>>> >>>> Would the desired use case be to reassign the case to a different user >>>> _on the phone_, or on HQ? In theory if you were operating in sync mode >>>> (which you'd need to be for the user to be removed from the phone) we could >>>> send a fixture to the phones containing all of the registered users, and >>>> the case reassignment could be done on the phone. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, Danny or Cory could give you an estimate for when we think >>>> case reassignment might be ready on HQ. >>>> >>>> -Clayton >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Ray Brunsting wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have a follow-up question related to case ownership. >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, April 9, Cory Zue wrote: "Owner ID was introduced as a >>>>> concept when we added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is >>>>> to allow a case to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the >>>>> group id) so that it could be shared across users. *However, you can >>>>> also use the field for reassignment, as your use case would cover*" >>>>> >>>>> We're starting to bump into scenarios where a number of clients (and >>>>> their cases) need to be transfered between CHWs. In our case, this is being >>>>> done to reduce the workload of particular CHWs and we would like to * >>>>> transfer* (ie. *not* share) cases. I don't believe the 'case >>>>> transfer' scenario is supported yet in CCHQ, right? If not, do you know >>>>> if/when such functionality may be supported and what version dependencies >>>>> may be involved? (ie. will it depend on CC 2.0) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Ray >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Russell, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or >>>>>>> should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to be >>>>>>> the current user in charge of the case? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 >>>>>>> took >>>>>>> over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for >>>>>>> any info or advice. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we >>>>>> added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case >>>>>> to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it >>>>>> could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for >>>>>> reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important >>>>>> when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates >>>>>> from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over >>>>>> the air restore of a user's data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or >>>>>> (obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards >>>>>> compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by >>>>>> whatever is in the user_id property. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cory >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >

I just had a look at the new ‘Manage Data->Reassign Cases’ functionality
than Danny announcedhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/commcare-users/RboxNQkLOIw/discussion[1]. Looks great to me. Thanks!

[1] -
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/commcare-users/RboxNQkLOIw/discussion

··· On Monday, May 7, 2012 1:04:34 PM UTC-4, Ray Brunsting wrote: > > Cory wrote: "*I suspect we'll have something in place in the next month > (quite possibly sooner) but if other things come up it could end up getting > pushed back*." > > Perfect. Thanks! > > Ray > > On Monday, May 7, 2012 12:16:42 AM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote: >> >> Hey Ray, >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Clayton Sims wrote: >> >>> If the ideal use case is HQ, that actually seems a bit easier, Danny and >>> Cory can provide a better idea of when that might be possible. >>> >> >> Sorry to be a bit delayed - we've been having some discussions on our >> side about how hard this will be to implement and when we can find time to >> work on it. I suspect we'll have something in place in the next month >> (quite possibly sooner) but if other things come up it could end up getting >> pushed back. >> >> Cory >> >> >>> >>> -Clayton >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Ray Brunsting wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Clayton, >>>> >>>> The desired use case would be to handle the reassignment on >>>> HQ....ideally, by selecting a subset of cases owned by one CHW and a new >>>> owner for the selected cases. >>>> >>>> If it's possible to handle the transfer via xform submissions, we may >>>> consider doing that. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Ray >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:13:38 AM UTC-4, Clayton Sims wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ray, >>>>> >>>>> You're correct that currently this isn't supported. >>>>> >>>>> Would the desired use case be to reassign the case to a different user >>>>> _on the phone_, or on HQ? In theory if you were operating in sync mode >>>>> (which you'd need to be for the user to be removed from the phone) we could >>>>> send a fixture to the phones containing all of the registered users, and >>>>> the case reassignment could be done on the phone. >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise, Danny or Cory could give you an estimate for when we think >>>>> case reassignment might be ready on HQ. >>>>> >>>>> -Clayton >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Ray Brunsting wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have a follow-up question related to case ownership. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, April 9, Cory Zue wrote: "Owner ID was introduced as a >>>>>> concept when we added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is >>>>>> to allow a case to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the >>>>>> group id) so that it could be shared across users. *However, you can >>>>>> also use the field for reassignment, as your use case would cover*" >>>>>> >>>>>> We're starting to bump into scenarios where a number of clients (and >>>>>> their cases) need to be transfered between CHWs. In our case, this is being >>>>>> done to reduce the workload of particular CHWs and we would like to * >>>>>> transfer* (ie. *not* share) cases. I don't believe the 'case >>>>>> transfer' scenario is supported yet in CCHQ, right? If not, do you know >>>>>> if/when such functionality may be supported and what version dependencies >>>>>> may be involved? (ie. will it depend on CC 2.0) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Ray >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:42:50 PM UTC-4, Cory Zue wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Russell, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Russell Gillen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, I was wondering whether or not owner ID is usually expected, or >>>>>>>> should be required with case information. Is the owner supposed to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> the current user in charge of the case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suppose a case was started by user1, but three months later user2 >>>>>>>> took >>>>>>>> over the case. When and where should the ownerId be set? Thanks for >>>>>>>> any info or advice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is all correct. Owner ID was introduced as a concept when we >>>>>>> added case sharing on the mobile side. The main use case is to allow a case >>>>>>> to belong to a group (the owner_id would be set to the group id) so that it >>>>>>> could be shared across users. However, you can also use the field for >>>>>>> reassignment, as your use case would cover. This property is most important >>>>>>> when using CommCare in sync mode, where the phones remotely pull updates >>>>>>> from the server, however will also affect the contents of an initial over >>>>>>> the air restore of a user's data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moving forward, owner ID should be set when creating the case, or >>>>>>> (obviously) when changing case ownership. However for backwards >>>>>>> compatibility, any case without an owner id defaults to being owned by >>>>>>> whatever is in the user_id property. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cory >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>