[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25260] Merge 'reserves' and 'old_reserves' into a new 'holds' table

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25260

--- Comment #65 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart+koha at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #63)

> - t/db_dependent/Reserves.t failure

There are 2 things:
1.
1107                 item_id          => $item->biblionumber,
Key must be biblio_id

2.
The $title_level_target_query query in _Findgroupreserve is now returning the
"reserved" hold. On master it's not matching any rows and the third query
($query) is hit and returned the different holds.

I think it's coming from:
-        JOIN hold_fill_targets USING (reserve_id)
vs
+        JOIN hold_fill_targets ON (
+                holds.biblio_id=hold_fill_targets.biblionumber
+            AND holds.patron_id=hold_fill_targets.borrowernumber)


> - t/db_dependent/Circulation.t failure

    #          got: 'on_reserve'
    #     expected: 'too_soon'
Related to hold's status as well so may be fixed if the previous test is
corrected.

> - Add some warning in about.pl about wrong letters (maybe?)

After we moved the marcxml out of biblioitems we added a warning on the report
list view. Maybe we should do the same for the notice templates?

  commit f22d2e7200ee8b35aff66b26acc3e2daa49f9f0d
  Bug 17898: Automagically convert SQL reports


Questions:
* Shouldn't *_date DB fields be *_on?
* item_level => item_level_request
I think we agreed on "item_level_request", why did you change it?
* Shouldn't holds.id be holds.hold_id? I cannot remember when/where but I think
we agreed we shouldn't use "id" (to prevent wrong id to be returned on JOIN).

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