[Koha-bugs] [Bug 32980] Checkouts for guarantees are not shown if patron also has a guarantor

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32980

--- Comment #17 from Nick Clemens <nick at bywatersolutions.com> ---
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #16)
> > > What I would expect for a relationship: 
> > > The guarantor can see the checkouts of their guarantees, as the label is:
> > > Show checkouts to guarantor (not to guarantees).
> > It looks like this setting (privacy_guarantor_checkouts) only affects OPAC ?

> Also the labelling on the buttons/checkboxes suggests otherwise and they
> would at least need to be fixed. But I think we should not move here before
> we agree on the intended behavior.

Those buttons do control the OPAC, maybe it could be made more clear, but I
don't see it as a blocker here

> > The checkouts tab is labelled as "Relatives' checkouts" and apparently
> > included checkouts for guarantor, siblings and guarantees for a long time.

> In a parent/child situation I cannot imagine it would be wanted that the
> children see the parents' checkouts?

I think Julian is right, this is how it worked for a long time. And we are
talking about staff seeing the checkouts, not patrons. The staff shouldn't
reveal that info if it goes against patron privacy, but I don't think it
necessarily needs to be hidden from staff. I do think that a preference here
would help. 

Things changed when we added multiple guarantors, and guarantors with
guarantors, and there should probably be switches for both 'Allow staff to see
guarantees checkouts' and 'Allow staff to view guarantors checkout' - sysprefs
or permissions, I am not sure which is preferable, but I think that can be its
own bug too.

I do wonder how 'view_borrower_infos_from_any_libraries' should be treated.
Currently we will show the guarantee/tor names, and we will show those names
with the checkouts as well, though the staff may not be able to view that
borrower directly. And that is probably yet another bug




(In reply to Julian Maurice from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #12)
> > Any good reasons to not use TestBuilder? 
> I'm ok with your patch but I don't understand why you took the time to write
> it. Is it mandatory to use TestBuilder in test files ?
> What do we gain ? Certainly not speed because it now takes 40% more time for
> the test to complete.

I think we gain consistency - if we always use builder, then it makes it easy
to see how to write tests. It is also safer for naming, to avoid collision with
possible test data in the system generated by humans (CCCCCCC is something we
could add for testing, and suddenly your tests are failing) If there are fields
you expect to be empty when building, we have sub _gen_default_values and
should add more cases as needed

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