February 2023 - Koha-bugs - lists.koha-community.org

[Bug 28701] New: primary_contact_method not part of the REST API spec
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 03 Apr '26

03 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28701 Bug ID: 28701 Summary: primary_contact_method not part of the REST API spec 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: jonathan.druart+koha(a)gmail.com Bug 11879 added borrowers.primary_contact_method but not the REST API spec changes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 39

[Bug 29668] New: Add API route to create a basket
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 03 Apr '26

03 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29668 Bug ID: 29668 Summary: Add API route to create a basket Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: ASSIGNED Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: REST API Assignee: julian.maurice(a)biblibre.com Reporter: julian.maurice(a)biblibre.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

1 37

[Bug 21459] New: Allow migrating requests between ILL and purchase suggestions
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 03 Apr '26

03 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=21459 Bug ID: 21459 Summary: Allow migrating requests between ILL and purchase suggestions Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: ILL Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: magnus(a)libriotech.no One library would like to be able to take a purchase suggestion and turn it into an ILL request. And to take an ILL request and turn it into a purchase suggestion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 12

[Bug 31520] New: Only log ILL changes that are actual changes
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 03 Apr '26

03 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31520 Bug ID: 31520 Summary: Only log ILL changes that are actual changes Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: ILL Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: magnus(a)libriotech.no "Bug 20750 - Allow timestamped auditing of ILL request events" added the ability to log status changes to ILL requests, in the action_logs table, with action = 'STATUS_CHANGE'. I have an ILL setup where a remote API is checked for data every 3 minutes, and requests are updated. With Illlog = on, this leads to 480 action_logs entries per 24-hour period. I have a test setup where the amount of logs was causing the detailed display of illrequests to time out, because there were so many log entries to fetch. This could be improved if we only logged actual status changes. Today there is a log entry even if the status is not changed: | ILL | STATUS_CHANGE | {"status_after":"IN_LEV","log_origin":"core","status_before":"IN_LEV"} | | ILL | STATUS_CHANGE | {"status_after":"IN_LEV","status_before":"IN_LEV","log_origin":"core"} | | ILL | STATUS_CHANGE | {"status_before":"IN_LEV","status_after":"IN_LEV","log_origin":"core"} | | ILL | STATUS_CHANGE | {"log_origin":"core","status_before":"IN_LEV","status_after":"IN_LEV"} | | ILL | STATUS_CHANGE | {"status_before":"IN_LEV","status_after":"IN_LEV","log_origin":"core"} | | ILL | STATUS_CHANGE | {"status_after":"IN_LEV","log_origin":"core","status_before":"IN_LEV"} | +--------+---------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ We could compare status_before and status_after, and only log if they differ. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 5

[Bug 32896] New: Can we move autoBarcode handling into Koha::Item->store() ?
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 02 Apr '26

02 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32896 Bug ID: 32896 Summary: Can we move autoBarcode handling into Koha::Item->store() ? Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: martin.renvoize(a)ptfs-europe.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org Currently, the codebase is somewhat littered with calls to check the autoBarcode pref and then generate a barcode.. could we remove these calls from the various controllers and move it to one call in Koha::Item->store() instead? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 10

[Bug 31380] New: Build Mojolicious controller for running Koha plugins
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 02 Apr '26

02 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31380 Bug ID: 31380 Summary: Build Mojolicious controller for running Koha plugins Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: dcook(a)prosentient.com.au QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org At the moment, Koha plugins run via Plack::App::CGIBin, which buffers responses and otherwise prevents plugins from fully leveraging the power of Plack and Mojolicious. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 81

[Bug 32196] New: One should be able to remove a borrower relationship whenever one exists
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 02 Apr '26

02 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32196 Bug ID: 32196 Summary: One should be able to remove a borrower relationship whenever one exists Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 - low Component: Patrons Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: andrewfh(a)dubcolib.org QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com, kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com Depends on: 12446 Per bug 32195, there is still at least one way for a patron to end up with a guarantor in a category that does not allow guarantors. When that happens, the patron edit screen does not show one the relationship and therefore the relationship cannot be removed. One should *always* be able to remove an existing relationship. To recreate: 1: have a patron category where CanBeGuarantee is set to Yes. 2: Create a patron in that category, give them a guarantor 3: edit the patron category to set CanBeGuarantee to No 4: confirm your patron still has a guarantor that shows on the details page, but the guarantor no longer shows on the edit screen 5: this means the guarantor cannot be removed :( Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=12446 [Bug 12446] Enable an adult to have a guarantor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 7

[Bug 31557] New: Hold queue/home vs. holding library/transport cost matrix complications
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 02 Apr '26

02 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31557 Bug ID: 31557 Summary: Hold queue/home vs. holding library/transport cost matrix complications Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: 21.11 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Circulation Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: sbrown(a)bywatersolutions.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com, kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com It would be helpful if build_holds_queue.pl either 1) checked items' holding libraries in addition to home when items float, or 2) used the Transport Cost Matrix instead when systems have it enabled. Using home library only/first results in higher 'costs' and in holds being filled more slowly than necessary, and can be confusing for libraries. Home/holding: If I understand correctly, build_holds_queue.pl looks for items whose home library matches the hold's pickup library (plus accounting for any preferences set in StaticHoldsQueueWeight/HoldsQueueSkipClosed/RandomizeHoldsQueueWeight). For example, in a system where items float, a hold to be picked up at West library has the following items: Item 1: Home library West, holding library East Item 2: Home library West, holding library West Item 3: Home library North, holding library West If build_holds_queue.pl sees Item 1 first, it will be placed on East's queue to send to West even though Item 2 is already at West and could fill the hold more efficiently. Then since the Transport Cost Matrix is only consulted if no available items have a home library matching the hold's pickup library, holds are filled in a more 'expensive' way than libraries may expect. Using the Transport Cost Matrix directly would address this. For example, in a system where items float and a hold is to be picked up at South: Item 1: Home library East, holding library South Item 2: Home library West, holding library West Item 3: Home library South, holding library West build_holds_queue.pl will see that Item 3 has a home library matching the pickup library and will place it on West's queue to send to South. If build_holds_queue.pl consulted the Transport Cost Matrix, Item 1 would be placed on South's queue with no transfer necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 30

[Bug 24125] New: Deleting an authority clears the record heading
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 01 Apr '26

01 Apr '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24125 Bug ID: 24125 Summary: Deleting an authority clears the record heading Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 - low Component: MARC Authority data support Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: nick(a)bywatersolutions.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org To recreate: 1 - Find a record with an author linked to an authority 2 - Get that authority number 3 - Browse to tools->batch record deletion 4 - Select authorities and enter that authority id 5 - Delete the authority 6 - View the record, the 100 field has been cleared -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 22

[Bug 30795] New: Configure unwanted and mandatory borrower fields based on patron category
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 31 Mar '26

31 Mar '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=30795 Bug ID: 30795 Summary: Configure unwanted and mandatory borrower fields based on patron category Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Patrons Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: dcook(a)prosentient.com.au QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com, kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com It would be nice if there were a way to specify different unwanted and mandatory fields based on patron category (rather than enforcing 1 rule for all different patron categories). At the moment, I see libraries putting in junk data (like '-' or 'N/A') to get around mandatory field requirements where it doesn't make sense for certain patron categories. It makes sense to have a default rule for these fields, and then individual patron categories could be overwritten with more specific rules. -- I suppose the difficulty at the moment is that we don't choose a patron category until we're already on the add patron screen. Maybe we should be making it a multi-step process. That would have its pros and cons of course. Actually, this reminds me of another thought I've had where we could standardize CRUD forms... but I'll open another bug for that... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 16