August 2017 - Koha-bugs - lists.koha-community.org

[Bug 19161] New: asdsad
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 22 Aug '17

22 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19161 Bug ID: 19161 Summary: asdsad Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: 16.05 Hardware: PC OS: Windows Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: retasbro.01(a)gmail.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org Created attachment 66283 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=66283&action=ed… asdasd asdasdsada -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 5062] Acq terminology: list price, ordering price, vendor price, RRP
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5062 Marjorie Barry-Vila <marjorie.barry-vila(a)ccsr.qc.ca> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |marjorie.barry-vila(a)ccsr.qc | |.ca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 2946] Lost items (that are hidden in Normal View) still show up in the MARC View in OPAC
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=2946 M. Tompsett <mtompset(a)hotmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #66216|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #13 from M. Tompsett <mtompset(a)hotmail.com> --- Created attachment 66284 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=66284&action=ed… Bug 2946: Added some missing logic The norequests logic affects the opac-details-sidebar.inc logic which is shared in ISBD and MARC views. It is correct in ISBD and this brings it into MARC detailed view. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 14385] Extend OpacHiddenItems to allow specifying exempt borrower categories
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14385 M. Tompsett <mtompset(a)hotmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |Needs Signoff --- Comment #104 from M. Tompsett <mtompset(a)hotmail.com> --- I would very much appreciate testing and feedback, while I attempt to make a more complete test plan. Apply 19040 first. Then this. Then test. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 18478] New: Hold Notices sent via SMS gateway fail
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18478 Bug ID: 18478 Summary: Hold Notices sent via SMS gateway fail Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: 16.11 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Notices Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: jzairo(a)bywatersolutions.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org Hold filled notices sent via SMS gateway fail when notifying patron. Other messages including item checkout, item checkin, send successfully via SMS gateway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 41

[Bug 5534] Koha does not ignore punctuation when searching
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5534 --- Comment #17 from dguidry(a)lcg.org --- We originally installed Koha around May or June of 2016 and would have been on the 3.22 version that was released at that time. We used defaults for everything as far as I remember and it appears that we're using Zebra. Is it possible to switch to ElasticSearch and is it fairly involved to do so? Are there any other considerations to take into account before doing so? Is ElasticSearch production-ready? Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 14007] Item Types for items hidden by OpacHiddenItems turn up in facet results
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14007 Chris Slone <cslone(a)camdencountylibrary.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cslone@camdencountylibrary. | |org --- Comment #1 from Chris Slone <cslone(a)camdencountylibrary.org> --- I know this bug is a little old now, but it is still pertinent. If you have an item type that cannot be viewed on the OPAC it still shows up in the facets. For example, we have an Interlibrary Loan item type that is not visible on the OPAC, but it appears in the facets when it meets the criteria of the search. Clicking on this item type will bring you to an error message. It's confusing to the patron and/or gives the impression that there are problems with the OPAC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 12872] Exclude some fields from Zebra indexing
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=12872 --- Comment #33 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer(a)bsz-bw.de> --- I think with Zebra separate complete indexes would need twice as much space, that might be an issue for bigger installations. Also needs separate reindexing etc. Using the record filter would require that. Having some indexes separate for intranet/staff might be less resource intensive. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 12872] Exclude some fields from Zebra indexing
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=12872 --- Comment #32 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #30) > (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #29) > > Hi Marcel and Kyle, what's needed to get this moving again? > > Would love to be able to exclude the internal notes from being indexed (bug > > 15050) > Hard to say. > > Another question is: If we exclude field A from Zebra, do we need to exclude > it from ElasticSearch too ? If we add a pref or a config var, it is on the > instance level. We probably don't want it to be on search engine level ? > > Nick: Could you please report the current status of Elastic in this regard? > How can I exclude a specific field from indexing per INSTANCE in Elastic now > ? Definitely worth re thinking on ES as we could have separate indexes for intranet and OPAC. Filtering should be achieved using the record processor filter over MARC records we already have, before sending for indexing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 12872] Exclude some fields from Zebra indexing
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 Aug '17

21 Aug '17

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=12872 --- Comment #31 from Nick Clemens <nick(a)bywatersolutions.com> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #30) > (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #29) > > Hi Marcel and Kyle, what's needed to get this moving again? > > Would love to be able to exclude the internal notes from being indexed (bug > > 15050) > Hard to say. > > Another question is: If we exclude field A from Zebra, do we need to exclude > it from ElasticSearch too ? If we add a pref or a config var, it is on the > instance level. We probably don't want it to be on search engine level ? > > Nick: Could you please report the current status of Elastic in this regard? > How can I exclude a specific field from indexing per INSTANCE in Elastic now > ? I would say yes, if excluding from Zebra we should exclude from Elastic, I am having a hard time thinking of a reason you would only want to exclude form one search engine. Currently ES implementation doesn't support this, we push the entire record into the '_all' field. Catmandu fixes do allow exclusion of fields I believe, so we should be able to add the ability to exclude fields into the configuration section, or in a syspref, to allow this per instance -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0