[Koha-bugs] [Bug 32748] Library limitations will cause data loss when editing items

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32748

--- Comment #30 from Thibaud Guillot <thibaud.guillot at biblibre.com> ---
Thank you for your time and feedback Katrin, by "hide" do you mean that it
would be possible to assign the "hidden" attribute to the element? In order to
retrieve it anyway and for libraries that would like to make it appear they can
do so via intranetUserJs for example.(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment
#29)
> (In reply to Thibaud Guillot from comment #28)
> > Hi Katrin,
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay in my reply. I've gone back over the code a bit,
> > concerning the presence of the value if it's not the current value, I've
> > taken a look at the form for modifying the categorycode of a borrower and
> > the value, even if it's limited to a branch, does appear in the list...
> 
> That should not be the case. I quickly retested:
> * My user's login branch and home library is: Centerville
> * Patron category "B - Board" is limited to Franklin
> * Create a new patron: Board doesn't show
> * Edit an existing patron with another patron category: Board doesn't show
> * Edit a patron with Board category: Board appears in the list of options
> (but the nice little icon and text have moved all the way to the left...
> maybe with the staff re-design. See bug 31422)
> 
> Another area where the "keep current" is implemented really nicely is funds.
> If you receive an order with a fund you are not allowed to use for ordering,
> it will still show up in the list on receive and be marked as "current". 
> 
> To see this, something like this should work:
> * Create an order line with using fund X
> * Set the fund to be limited by library
> * set the fund to be owned by a library that is not yours
> * Make sure your user is not superlibrarian and doesn't have
> budget_manage_all
> * Receive the order...
> 
> > maybe it's a recent patch, I seemed to have seen a few things that dealt
> > with this but I can't find them :/
> > 
> > Could we add the disabled attribute to the entry to display it all the same,
> > or should we stick with "hidden"? 
> 
> One big motivation for libraries to use library limitations is 'shrinking
> the list' for better usability. 
> So yes, we do want to hide and only display what is absolutely necessary.
> 
Thank you for your time and feedback Katrin, by "hide" do you mean that it
would be possible to assign the "hidden" attribute to the element (just to be
clearer) ? In order to retrieve it anyway and for libraries that would like to
make it appear they can do with "intranetUserJs" for example.
> 
> > On the other hand, I don't understand your sentence "It looks like the code
> > doesn't take the 'false' AV like itemtype into account, but it should." I'm
> > calling the original GetAuthorisedValues function with an extra parameter,
> > but it didn't retrieve the basic itemtypes, so I'd like to ask you to
> > clarify this.
> 
> I think maybe we could deal with this separately as it might be a different
> part of the code?
> 
> What I meant is that when setting up the item form in the bibliographic
> framework, you will set up the authorised values "itemtypes" and "branches"
> to create the item type and home and holding branch pull downs. Re-thinking
> this, we could deal with these separately I think - especially since only
> itemtypes are 'library limitable'.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that point :)

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