http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5786
--- Comment #96 from Srdjan Jankovic <srd...@catalyst.net.nz> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #95) > CODE REVIEW > > 2) Why is this line removed from updatedatabaes.pl? > $dbh->do("UPDATE `systempreferences` SET type='Integer' WHERE > variable='ReservesMaxPickupDelay'"); (?) I don't remember clearly. This is a combination of bugs that could not be done separately, they are too interdependent. This was part of 5788. But it seems that ReservesMaxPickupDelay was never implemented. I am confused. So maybe put it back, although it seems to be a noop? > > 3) Why set the issuingrules to 1, after finding out the original setting > first? > + $dbh->do("UPDATE issuingrules SET opacitemholds=1"); > Shouldn't it update to $opacitemholds with Y, N or F? (blocker) That's a bug, it should be: + $dbh->do("UPDATE issuingrules SET opacitemholds='$opacitemholds'"); > > 4) Add bug number to database update. (trivial) I have no problems fixing that, however this patch has changed and when I do git bz apply I get: fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless (C4/Auth.pm). Any hints? > > > TESTING > > Issuingrules > > 5) Automatic renewal is a yes/no pull down, on shelf holds is a checkbox. I > think to be more consistent we should use one or the other. (?) Ok, which one? To me tick box makes more sense for yes/no > > 6) If you checked the checkbox on saving and open the rule for editing, the > checkbox is not checked, but it should be. (blocker) I can see there was something done in the follow up, but I cannot pick it up (git bz appply above) > > 7) I feel like the description and options of the new opacitemholds is hard > to interpret, if you don't know about the former behaviour. But not sure how > to rename. I feel like item-level holds might be a little more > understandable, but not sure. (trivial) I can do that > > > Placing holds (not sure that's understandable to anyone but me...) > > 8) All - Books: 10 days, reservesallowed 99, onshelfholds = yes > Record: 4 items, all Books and available, one being notforloan = 'on order' > There is a positive all-all-all rule. > Maxreserves is > 0 > item-level_itypes is set to specific item > - opacitemholds = Y = OK, both options are available > - opacitemholds = N = OK, only title level hold available > ! opacitemholds = F = NOT OK? display is confusing, as it still shows > "Next available item A specific item" but the first without the checkbox > Tested in 3.18.2 - there "Next available item" is not shown in this case > > Summary: All items one itype, forced item level holds - display still offers > "Next available" but no checkbox > I feel like the combination of one itype F and another set to Y > (allow bib level) is problematic. > We need to decide what to do here - allow bib level (activate the > checkbox) or remove the mention of it > from the templates altogether. I tend to do the first. (normal) I'm afraid that goes way beyond my understanding. But if you tell me what you want to happen, I can make it happen :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/