[Koha-bugs] [Bug 32030] Electronic resource management (ERM)

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32030

--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart+koha at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Victor Grousset/tuxayo from comment #13)
> In the /agreements page, the «Filter by expired: [X] on» is confusing. It's
> not clear that it must be ticked for the date field to have any effect. Or
> maybe unchecked has a different effect. But it seems not.
> 
> https://wtf.roflcopter.fr/pics/foywDHSU/5E4BFfT6.png

It's not how it appears, it should be displayed like this:
https://snipboard.io/Pv5a9O.jpg

> The doc draft says
> > At the top of the Agreements page you will notice a Filter box. The purpose of this is to allow you to quickly filter expired agreements or agreements which may have an upcoming renewal (and therefore might require action).
> 
> There doesn't seem to be another filter mode when unchecked.

Another filter mode? What do you mean?

> From the code it seems the date field is only used when the box is ticked.
> Is that done to be able to keep an expiration date saved without having it
> used? (it's not saved so it's not that)
> Otherwise the filter could just be used when the date field is populated.

You only need to click the checkbox to search for "expired on today" (it will
populate the date with today when the checkbox is ticked). That's something you
couldn't have with your suggestion.

I don't think the current behaviour is confusing, really. We could eventually
hide 'on [date]' when the checkbox is not checked. We are talking about
providing a MVP for 22.11 inclusion, not trying to catch minor UI design flaws
;)

(In reply to Victor Grousset/tuxayo from comment #14)
> At "sub agreement_relationships"
> 
> +        my $back_links = {
> +            'supersedes'       => 'is-superseded-by',
> +            'is-superseded-by' => 'supersedes',
> +            'provides_post-cancellation_access_for' =>
> 'has-post-cancellation-access-in',
> +            'has-post-cancellation-access-in'       =>
> 'provides_post-cancellation_access_for',
> +            'tracks_demand-driven_acquisitions_for' =>
> 'has-demand-driven-acquisitions-in',
> +            'has-demand-driven-acquisitions-in'     =>
> 'tracks_demand-driven_acquisitions_for',
> +            'has_backfile_in'  => 'has_frontfile_in',
> +            'has_frontfile_in' => 'has_backfile_in',
> +            'related_to'       => 'related_to',
> +        };
> 
> 
> What are the rules for using - or _? Like
> "has-demand-driven-acquisitions-in" and
> "tracks_demand-driven_acquisitions_for"
> Just in case, with some greps I double checked that there wasn't a mixup
> between - and _ anywhere, all good! 👍️

Coming from Folio:
https://github.com/folio-org/ui-agreements/blob/master/src/constants/agreementRelationshipTypes.js
I guess the idea was to have '_' for spaces and '-' for '-', but yes, it's
inconsistent.

Note that we are displaying the code when we should display strings.
Reported on https://tree.taiga.io/project/joubu-koha-erm/us/138

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