http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=4530
Paul Poulain <paul.poul...@biblibre.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|PATCH-Sent (DO NOT USE) |P2 Status|Signed Off |Failed QA CC| |francois.charbonnier@biblib | |re.com, | |gaetan.bois...@biblibre.com | |, paul.poul...@biblibre.com --- Comment #21 from Paul Poulain <paul.poul...@biblibre.com> 2012-02-17 17:18:48 UTC --- QA comments/questions === point 1 (and a question) === (In reply to comment #3) > More comprehensive description of rule selection: > * Rules are chosen in order of preference borrower category, item type, > branch > * If value for certain rule is null, next rule in order is chosen > * 0 is treated as null does it mean that, if I set the general rule to 7 documents for 21 days, and set a rule for CHILDREN / DVD to 0 it will be treated as NULL and the general rule will be applied ? If yes, it's a big change in the behaviour, and, imo, a big mistake = libraries want to define such rules. 0 should mean 0. I agree we should handle "empty" as "rule unused at this level" === point 2 === If I understand well your code, the GetIssuingRules relies on ." order by branchcode desc, categorycode desc, itemtype desc"; and the rule returned is the result ordered 1st in this query, right. Reading what's written on smart-rules.pl: same library, same patron type, same item type same library, same patron type, all item types same library, all patron types, same item type same library, all patron types, all item types all libraries, same patron type, same item type all libraries, same patron type, all item types all libraries, all patron types, same item type all libraries, all patron types, all item types it's consistent with the order. === point 3 === In CanItemBeReserved, you removed the SQL that was - categorycode DESC, - itemtype DESC, - branchcode DESC;" in favor of GetIssuingRuleRecord, that is ." order by branchcode desc, categorycode desc, itemtype desc"; It mean that the behaviour will change depending on how you have setup your rules, isn't it ? I don't say I disagree, I say it must be clearly stated/advertised, and this patch should not be pushed in 3.6. (however, I think it's more consistent, so it's good) === point 4 === small point : SQL must have reserved words in capital so ." ORDER BY branchcode DESC, categorycode DESC, itemtype DESC"; and not ." order by branchcode desc, categorycode desc, itemtype desc"; === point 5 === This patch also change the fines/hold/renewal behaviour, isn't it ? More tests must be done in this area Conclusion: * marking failed QA for point 4 and until point 1 is addressed. I'll also ask in // for one of BibLibre librarians to investigate this bug/patch -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA Contact for the bug. 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/