September 2019 - Koha-bugs - lists.koha-community.org

[Bug 23358] New: REST API: Add pagination to /api/v1/holds
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=23358 Bug ID: 23358 Summary: REST API: Add pagination to /api/v1/holds Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: REST api Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: emmi.takkinen(a)outlook.com "/api/v1/holds" should allow use of _page and _per_page parameters. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 5

[Bug 8732] Add a systempreference to allow users to choose to display an icon based on the marc control fields, or based on the koha biblio level itemtype
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8732 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QA Contact| |tomascohen(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 8732] Add a systempreference to allow users to choose to display an icon based on the marc control fields, or based on the koha biblio level itemtype
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8732 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tomascohen(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 10486] Allow external Z39.50 targets to be searched from the OPAC
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10486 --- Comment #110 from Blou <philippe.blouin(a)inlibro.com> --- As we said 2.5y ago, we have that running *now* for 35 colleges. Our own version of it, Bug 11361. We aren't making any more effort to maintain the community patch since this bug here seemed more popular. If you have interest in it (Bug 11361 again), and get some traction from the QAs, we'll be happy to rebase it for the latest version within days. Otherwise we stay put, as all we want is the feature, and we don't care which version make it forward. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 10486] Allow external Z39.50 targets to be searched from the OPAC
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10486 Niamh <niamh.walker-headon(a)it-tallaght.ie> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |niamh.walker-headon@it-tall | |aght.ie --- Comment #109 from Niamh <niamh.walker-headon(a)it-tallaght.ie> --- Hi, Can anyone tell me what the current status if this is? A previous LMS had this and it had +3,000 hits the last year we had the system. It is missed by staff any patrons. Thanks, Niamh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 13193] Make Memcached usage fork safe
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=13193 --- Comment #24 from Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala(a)helsinki.fi> --- (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #23) > I'm wondering if it's worthwhile effectively porting the test from > Cache::Memcached::Fast::Safe for forking: > https://metacpan.org/source/KAZEBURO/Cache-Memcached-Fast-Safe-0.06/t/ > 02_fork.t. > > It doesn't test our particular case, but, assuming it's right, should catch > cases of missed calls to disconnect_all (which ::Safe does for us here).. in > that way we should catch failures if someone down the line decides to remove > the ::Safe module without fully understanding why we were using it. > > Thoughts? or would it be enough to add a comment on top of the line +my $memcached = Cache::Memcached::Fast::Safe->new( Stating that it is a fork safe memcached module? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 13193] Make Memcached usage fork safe
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=13193 --- Comment #23 from Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize(a)ptfs-europe.com> --- I'm wondering if it's worthwhile effectively porting the test from Cache::Memcached::Fast::Safe for forking: https://metacpan.org/source/KAZEBURO/Cache-Memcached-Fast-Safe-0.06/t/02_fo…. It doesn't test our particular case, but, assuming it's right, should catch cases of missed calls to disconnect_all (which ::Safe does for us here).. in that way we should catch failures if someone down the line decides to remove the ::Safe module without fully understanding why we were using it. Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 13193] Make Memcached usage fork safe
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=13193 --- Comment #22 from David Cook <dcook(a)prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #20) > I'd really like to see a regression test added for this if at all possible I'm with Joonas on this one. I've tried a number of times, and the results are very unpredictable. On the first run, memcached is empty, and even 100 runs didn't get any errors. Ran the test script again with memcached warmed up, and it took almost until the end of my 100 runs (maybe around 50-70) to get an error. Ran the test script again, and very soon got quite frequent errors. Ran the test script another few times, and now I'm no longer getting any errors. Cleared memcached... and can't reproduce again. Seems weird that I got so "lucky" the first times to get errors and now I'm getting none. I think this just goes to show the difficulty in testing this one... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 8822] Public calendar
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8822 Mubassir Ahsan <mahsandu(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mahsandu(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0

[Bug 13193] Make Memcached usage fork safe
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=13193 --- Comment #21 from Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala(a)helsinki.fi> --- (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #20) > I'd really like to see a regression test added for this if at all possible This might be quite difficult to reproduce in a test because on my machine this happened at 50 forks but on David's machine at 100 forks, so someone might have a machine where 1000 forks are required and when we do 1000 forks on lower specced machine it might totally freeze. I cannot come up currently with any way to test this specific case in a consistent way. Also while finding ways to test this online I came across this and there doesn't seem to be any way we could use currently with Koha's testing framework: <https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/196105/testing-mult…>. I don't know much about fuzzing and stuff so that could potentially something to look into, and stress testing Koha with 1000+ clients connecting simultaneously. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 0