<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I have sent this to the general mailing list.</p>
<p>tldr for general list readers;</p>
<ul>
<li>we need to be able to define separate circulation rules
between normal and on-site checkouts. <br>
</li>
<li>my proposal in this mail is to add a new circulation rule
scope "circulationtype". A rule scope in Koha is currently a
combination of a library, patron category and item type.</li>
<li>circulationtype would be either "All" (default), "Normal" or
"On-site"</li>
</ul>
<p>The case is explained by our client library here
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24101#c0">https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24101#c0</a><br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Which rules are suitable for such separation?</pre>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>I think this would make sense to all circulation rules except
hold-related rules. It would allow very flexible parametrization
between normal and on-site checkouts.<br>
</p>
<p>In order to make adaptation straight-forward, this could be
blocked by Bug 15522 (the circulation rules user interface
change). Once 15522 is pushed and libraries update their Koha
instances, they could find this together with the new GUI. Also at
this point it doesn't make much sense to develop anything new on
top of the old interface.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Lari Taskula
CEO, Hypernova Oy
+358449857337
Kauppakatu 25 C 409
80100 Joensuu, Finland</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1.4.2020 10.46, Jonathan Druart
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJzKNY50PDN5vAi8m7KV7AKZv1Sp3XPi2Tx19npvkYGj02DJFQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Lari,
I think it would be interesting to get opinions from the general
mailing list. What are the different use cases? Which rules are
suitable for such separation?
Theoretically, all. But in practice?
Your idea is good I think, and certainly a great way to answer the need.
Few things:
You will not double the size of the table horizontally, but maybe
vertically. Instead of 1 row you will end up with 2.
To prevent it to be doubled, the "type" will need to be "normal",
"onsite", or "both" if current maxissueqty == maxonsiteissueqty
Keep in mind the syspref ConsiderOnSiteCheckoutsAsNormalCheckouts.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Le mer. 1 avr. 2020 à 08:24, Lari Taskula <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lari.taskula@hypernova.fi"><lari.taskula@hypernova.fi></a> a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Hi fellow Koha devs,
I'm working on Bug 24101
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24101">https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24101</a> in which
our client wants the ability to separately define circulation rules for
normal and on-site checkouts. They need the ability to renew on-site
checkouts, define due date calculation parameters and additionally
specify separate fine rules (not mentioned in bz ticket yet).
I wanted to ask for your thoughts on this.
Initially I was thinking of duplicating the rules of normal circulation
the way maxissueqty and maxonsiteissueqty is currently done, but in the
end this would lead to duplicating almost all of the circulation rules.
That would not be very convenient and it seems like a short-sighted way
of solving this problem because it leaves no room for possible new types
of checkouts in the future. Who wants to see the circulation rule table
doubling in width? Not me.
Another, more elegant approach would be to define a new circulation rule
scope "circulationtype" that defines whether a rule applies to normal or
on-site checkout (or any other type of checkout someone may come up with
in the future). Now that we are able to explicitly define a scope that a
specific circulation rule follows, this would make sense. No need for
ugly duplication and we can get rid of maxonsiteissueqty too.
Anyways, before I start implementing such a change I wanted to ask for
support from the community, or better yet even cooler ideas. Perhaps
there is something about Koha that I have missed that could already
solve their problem.
Thanks for your time.
--
Lari Taskula
CEO, Hypernova Oy
+358449857337
Kauppakatu 25 C 409
80100 Joensuu, Finland
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org">Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel">https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel</a>
website : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.koha-community.org/">http://www.koha-community.org/</a>
git : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://git.koha-community.org/">http://git.koha-community.org/</a>
bugs : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bugs.koha-community.org/">http://bugs.koha-community.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>