[Koha-bugs] [Bug 28743] With IndependentBranches block changes to biblio records shared with other libraries

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28743

--- Comment #7 from Michael Hafen <michael.hafen at washk12.org> ---
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #6)
> Hi Michael,
> 
> as David pointed out, currently with IndependentBranches the records are
> shared and there are no limitations to editing them. A record doesn't belong
> to any library, everyone can edit. I think this is a too big change to
> existing behavior that will be unwanted by many, so it should be made
> strictly optional.
> 
> I also believe we might not want to add a new concept like this on top of
> IndependentBranches. In my opinion it needs more hashing out and it would
> look better in the new library group settings that I hope will replace
> IndependentBranches at some point in the not too soon future. 
> 
> Also there are a lot of edge cases here I am not sure about:
> 
> * If shared records cannot be edited by libraries using it, who can edit it
> to fix issues?
> * What about records for electronics, serials etc. that don't need to
> necessarily have items?
> * What about the Advanced cataloguing editor?
> 
> There is also no test plan here, please add one to your commit message. Also
> take a look at how the subject etc. should look like:
> https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Commit_messages

Should be easy to implement this with a new type of library group.  I haven't
done that before though, so I'd have to go through the code to figure that out.

The point of a record not belonging to any library (or library group) is
pivotal here.  The best I can think of would be adding a column to the
biblio(items) table to hold either the branch or branch group claiming the
record, or maybe that could be added through the biblio_metadata.  This would
cover your second edge case too, as electronics and serials could be given an
owner that way.

I used C4::Context->only_my_library() in the patch, so SuperLibrarians would
still be able to edit shared records, which addresses your first edge case.

The third edge case is also a bit sticky for me.  It would mean, to me, greatly
increasing the size of the patch, as I would also want to expand this to the
cataloging search and import batch record matching.  I figure once we start
declaring that a branch group owns a record, then we'd want to limit cataloging
to only records owned by the group or with no owner.  That would pretty much
eliminate the cases of shared records between library groups, but also reduce
the ability to reuse records.  Or, in cataloging, limit actions on records
owned by another library group to just duplicating the record.  I feel that to
fully flesh-out the feature that would be the way to go, but maybe I'm
over-thinking it.

If there is some interest in the feature I could work on the library groups and
advanced editor points, at least.  I'm also willing to withdraw the bug (I
don't see a "Won't Fix" status, so push it to "In Discussion" I guess), if
there isn't any interest.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.