April 2012 - Koha-bugs - lists.koha-community.org

[Bug 7970] New: Holds not working in OPAC
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 15 Jan '16

15 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7970 Priority: P5 - low Change sponsored?: --- Bug ID: 7970 CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com Assignee: koha.sekjal(a)gmail.com Summary: Holds not working in OPAC QA Contact: koha.sekjal(a)gmail.com Severity: major Classification: Unclassified OS: All Reporter: amit.gupta(a)osslabs.biz Hardware: All Status: NEW Version: rel_3_8 Component: Hold requests Product: Koha Holds not working in OPAC -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 27

[Bug 6624] New: Allow Koha to use the new read API from OpenLibrary
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6624 Bug #: 6624 Summary: Allow Koha to use the new read API from OpenLibrary Classification: Unclassified Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: OPAC AssignedTo: oleonard(a)myacpl.org ReportedBy: chris(a)bigballofwax.co.nz QAContact: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org http://openlibrary.org/dev/docs/api/read -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 14

[Bug 5334] New: add explicit foreign key constraints
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5334 Summary: add explicit foreign key constraints Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: HEAD Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: Database AssignedTo: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com QAContact: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Estimated Hours: 0.0 There are many tables that lack explicit foreign key relationships to parent tables. For example: * serial (biblionumber, subscriptionid) * subscription (biblionumber) * subscriptionhistory (biblionumber, subscriptionid) * suggestions (suggestedby, managedby, rejectedby) * branch_transfer_limits (toBranch, fromBranch) and many, many others. Explicit foreign keys should be added for several reasons: * to promote better data integrity and to expose cases where the application code makes unwarranted assumptions about the database structure * to allow cascading updates and deletes in some cases * to make it easier for external reporting tools to correctly identify relationships between tables * to make use of an ORM more effective There are some arguments against this: * a complete set of FKs may decrease database speed (on the other hand, the Koha schema already uses a bunch of FKs) There are some implementation details to consider: * the database creation scripts may need some reordering * in some cases, a database update to add an FK may require dealing with rows that do not meet the new constraint. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 12

[Bug 6657] New: Making 999 visible in framework duplicates 999 entry and affects index
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 13 Jan '16

13 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6657 Bug #: 6657 Summary: Making 999 visible in framework duplicates 999 entry and affects index Classification: Unclassified Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: rel_3_6 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: Cataloging AssignedTo: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: jwagner(a)ptfs.com QAContact: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org CC: ian.walls(a)bywatersolutions.com The 999 field is usually hidden in the frameworks; the 999$c is where Koha stores the biblionumber for the title. If someone edits the framework to make any field of the 999 visible, then any edit to any field of the MARC record results in a duplicate 999 with the biblionumber repeated. This can cause the record to appear twice in the zebra index, and can also make OPAC suppression not work. I have verified this behavior in current development head and several other versions. To replicate, export a title record and check its 999 field. There should only be one. For example: =999 \\$c219$d219 or <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "> <subfield code="c">219</subfield> <subfield code="d">219</subfield> </datafield> Then edit the framework to make any field of the 999 visible, and edit that same record. Make any change to the title, such as adding a 5xx note. Export the record again and check the 999. There will now be two of them, repeating the biblionumber: =999 \\$c219$d219 =999 \\$c219 or <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "> <subfield code="c">219</subfield> <subfield code="d">219</subfield> </datafield> <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "> <subfield code="c">219</subfield> </datafield> Changing the framework field back to hidden and forcing the MARC record back through zebraqueue does not fix the problem. The only fix we've found is to manually remove the extra 999 at the table level, then rebuild indexes. The first solution for the problem is to not set the 999 field as visible in any framework, but since you can't stop people from being adventurous, we also developed a code safeguard. It has not yet been backported from our current development head to the version in our public git repository; when it is, I'll add a link. In the meantime, here are the details of that commit. If the framework allows the biblionumber (999$c) field to be displayed and edited within the MARC editor, then this results in an additional 999$c value being added to the MARC record. This is because the code already pulled the biblionumber from the biblio table. This patch removes the addition of the extra 999$c field, although this field shouldn't really be editable in the first place. diff --git a/C4/Biblio.pm b/C4/Biblio.pm index 2e28f3f..3f61519 100644 --- a/C4/Biblio.pm +++ b/C4/Biblio.pm @@ -1858,13 +1858,13 @@ sub TransformHtmlToMarc { my $record = MARC::Record->new(); my $i=0; my @fields; + my ( $biblionumbertagfield, $biblionumbertagsubfield ) = + &GetMarcFromKohaField( "biblio.biblionumber", '' ); while ($params->[$i]){ # browse all CGI params my $param = $params->[$i]; my $newfield=0; # if we are on biblionumber, store it in the MARC::Record (it may not be in the edited fields) if ($param eq 'biblionumber') { - my ( $biblionumbertagfield, $biblionumbertagsubfield ) = - &GetMarcFromKohaField( "biblio.biblionumber", '' ); if ($biblionumbertagfield < 10) { $newfield = MARC::Field->new( $biblionumbertagfield, @@ -1903,6 +1903,12 @@ sub TransformHtmlToMarc { } else { while(defined $params->[$j] && $params->[$j] =~ /_code_/){ # browse all it's subfield my $inner_param = $params->[$j]; + my $biblionumbertagsubfield_string = "_code_" . $biblionumbertagsubfield . "_"; + if (($tag eq $biblionumbertagfield) && + ($inner_param =~ /$biblionumbertagsubfield_string/)) { + $j += 2; + next; + } if ($newfield){ -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 58

[Bug 5501] New: why is there a 'do not notify' option?
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 13 Jan '16

13 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5501 Summary: why is there a 'do not notify' option? Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: HEAD Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5 Component: Patrons AssignedTo: kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: nengard(a)gmail.com QAContact: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 When looking at the enhanced messages for patrons there is a 'do not notify' option - which is basically the same as not checking any messaging choices - so why do we need that option at all? I recommend removing it since it's confusing. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 16

[Bug 7710] New: multiple holds per title
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 13 Jan '16

13 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7710 Priority: P5 - low Change sponsored?: --- Bug ID: 7710 CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com Assignee: kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com Summary: multiple holds per title QA Contact: koha.sekjal(a)gmail.com Severity: enhancement Classification: Unclassified OS: All Reporter: melia(a)bywatersolutions.com Hardware: All Status: NEW Version: master Component: Circulation Product: Koha Users shall be able to place holds on multiple items attached to a single biblio, subject to two circulation policies (configurable on the branch/item type/patron category level). One policy shall indicate the number of holds that can be placed on items with different enumchron values (different volumes), while another shall indicate the number of holds that can be placed on items with the same enumchron field (different copies). This will allow libraries to allow patrons to place holds on multiple volumes of a title, up to a reasonable limit, while limiting or preventing multiple holds on 'equivalent' copies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 135

[Bug 7065] New: reserves table needs a primary key
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7065 Bug #: 7065 Summary: reserves table needs a primary key Classification: Unclassified Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing AssignedTo: ian.walls(a)bywatersolutions.com ReportedBy: ian.walls(a)bywatersolutions.com QAContact: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Blocks: 5609 The reserves (and old_reserves) tables desperately need a primary key. reservernumber should be used for consistency sake. This will allow the possibility of multiple holds per biblio/patron combination, and a host of other improvements. This is included in bug 5872, but needs to be broken out into it's own enhancement for independent review. One cavaet: the values must be unique across the union of reserves and old_reserves. While this is easy enough to achieve in a new installation, adding the values into an existing install gets trickier. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA Contact for the bug.

1 50

[Bug 5572] New: refinements to function merge sub merge in C4::AuthoritiesMarc
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5572 Summary: refinements to function merge sub merge in C4::AuthoritiesMarc Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: rel_3_2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: MARC Authority data support AssignedTo: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: januszop(a)gmail.com QAContact: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org CC: ian.walls(a)bywatersolutions.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Created attachment 2941 --> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=2941 Proposed patch When merging/editing authority records bibliographic records are to be corrected. This is done by merge from C4::AuthoritiesMarc. There has been a change in this function from 30 Sept./6 Oct. (commit e9c0a11d41f107425d7f53dcc09e57e3e00ee608) [between 3.2.0 beta and 3.2.0 RC] (http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5264) The original behavior in 3.0 was: when authority has been changed, then in the corresponding fields in the bibliographic records all the subfields of such fields controlled by authority will be dropped and created anew with only subfields which have a value in the authority. The new behavior is much better: in the bibliographic record only subfields which have a value in the authority_to (the new authority) will be changed. BUT what there was a subfield present (with value) in authority (and in bibliographic) and the value is now deleted form authority? It will still stay in all bibliographic, whereas it should not. Hence my proposal: subfields not active in authority framework will be preserved; subfields active in the authority framework (i.e. controlled by this authority type) should be set as in the authority record - either have the value of corresponding subfield in authority or be empty. Regards, Janusz -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.

1 57

[Bug 7440] New: Vestiges of NoZebra should be removed
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7440 Bug #: 7440 Summary: Vestiges of NoZebra should be removed Classification: Unclassified Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: Searching AssignedTo: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: jcamins(a)cpbibliography.com QAContact: ian.walls(a)bywatersolutions.com Depends on: 6227 NoZebra has been deprecated since 3.4.0. It is time to remove the vestiges of NoZebra from the code and eliminate the syspref so that people stop thinking they can use it. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

1 34

[Bug 8000] New: Test mode for notices
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 07 Jan '16

07 Jan '16

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8000 Priority: P5 - low Change sponsored?: --- Bug ID: 8000 Assignee: henridamien(a)koha-fr.org Summary: Test mode for notices QA Contact: koha.sekjal(a)gmail.com Severity: enhancement Classification: Unclassified OS: All Reporter: wizzyrea(a)gmail.com Hardware: All Status: NEW Version: unspecified Component: Notices Product: Koha Koha should have a test mode for notices so a library can see what all of the notices will look like before go live, or to troubleshoot difficulties. Test mode would do the following: -redirect all mails to a specified (by default the defined library email address) address - Ability to specify a patron as a "test" patron -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 114