May 2025 - Koha-bugs - lists.koha-community.org

[Bug 29908] New: Warning when empty ClaimReturnedWarningThreshold in patron_messages.inc
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 21 May '26

21 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29908 Bug ID: 29908 Summary: Warning when empty ClaimReturnedWarningThreshold in patron_messages.inc Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5 - low Component: Patrons Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: fridolin.somers(a)biblibre.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com, kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com System preference ClaimReturnedWarningThreshold manages the display of a patron message in case of too many claims. But this preference may be empty. This generates a warning : Argument "" isn't numeric in numeric gt (>) at /kohadevbox/koha/koha-tmpl/intranet-tmpl/prog/en/includes/patron_messages.inc line 128. Default value should be considered has 0 or infinite ? Before Bug 27873 code was in templates, bug still applies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 23

[Bug 39419] New: Holds API treats 'expiration_date' as 'patron_expiration_date'
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 20 May '26

20 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39419 Bug ID: 39419 Summary: Holds API treats 'expiration_date' as 'patron_expiration_date' Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: Main Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 - low Component: Hold requests Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: nick(a)bywatersolutions.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com This is going to have a related issue in Aspen, but I think the confusion starts here Koha has two fields for hold expiration: expirationdate - (usually) auto generated date set based no when holds on the shelf expire patron_exiration_date - the day the patron says they don't need the hold after The API takes "expiration_date" and maps it to "patron_expiration_date" This can be unclear for outside systems. Aspen has a 'Default Not Needed After Days' setting which is assumed to be setting the automatic expiraton date, but in fact sets the patron date We should allow either field to be set via the API -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 63

[Bug 39658] New: Allow definition of non-hierarchical linked patron accounts
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 20 May '26

20 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39658 Bug ID: 39658 Summary: Allow definition of non-hierarchical linked patron accounts Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: Main Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Patrons Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: andrew(a)bywatersolutions.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com, kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com In a Koha system containing multiple functionally-autonomous libraries, one patron may have multiple distinct accounts within the same Koha system. These accounts represent distinct cards from distinct libraries and need their circulation rules enforced as such, so they can't be merged into one account. But no one of these accounts is "primary" and they all represent the same person, so guarantor/guarantee relationships are a poor conceptual fit (and may already be in use for their intended purpose). These linked/shared accounts would: - clearly link between each other in the Details of the patron record - optionally reciprocally enforce restrictions and blocks due to fines & fees (when one account is blocked, all are) - optionally allow checkout of on-hold items for shared accounts For that last item, assuming one patron has accounts card1 and card2. They have a hold ready for pickup on their card1 account. If Koha attempts to check the waiting item out to the card2 account, koha should check the item out on the card1 account, mark the hold complete, and give the user a clear on-screen message as to what happened. It should not ask for confirmation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 142

[Bug 39981] New: Patron extended attribute search only available at patrons page
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 20 May '26

20 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39981 Bug ID: 39981 Summary: Patron extended attribute search only available at patrons page Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Staff interface Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: mikko.liimatainen(a)turku.fi QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com When you have selected patron attribute to be searchable in staff patron searches, this can only be done in the patrons page. However there are many other pages that have the patron search box available where you can't search with the extended patron attributes. I think patron attribute search should be available always when patron search is available. It would be more consistent with the description of the preference. "Check to make this attribute searchable in staff patron searches. If checked, this attribute will appear in patron search dropdowns." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 9

[Bug 39094] New: Adjust system preferences to account for new option to refund the previous lost fee when marking an item Claims returned
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 20 May '26

20 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39094 Bug ID: 39094 Summary: Adjust system preferences to account for new option to refund the previous lost fee when marking an item Claims returned Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: Main Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5 - low Component: System Administration Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: emily.lamancusa(a)montgomerycountymd.gov QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com Depends on: 33292 ClaimReturnedChargeFee has the option to charge a lost fee, don't charge, or ask if a lost fee should be charged, when marking an item claims returned. These options should be update to reflect the new option to refund the previous lost item fee. Currently, if the preference is set to "ask if a lost fee should be charged", the modal shows two checkboxes: "Charge a lost fee" and "Refund previous lost fee". If the preference is set to charge or don't charge, the checkbox for "Charge a lost fee" is (correctly) not displayed, but the checkbox for "Refund previous lost fee" is also not displayed. It's a bit odd to show either both checkboxes or neither. It would also be nice to have the same options for refunding the lost fee that we currently have for charging a lost fee (refund, don't refund, or ask). We should add more options to ClaimReturnedChargeFee, or add a ClaimReturnedRefundFee preference. Somewhat relatedly, if we are going to allow the modal to give the user both options to charge or refund (or neither), we should use radio buttons or a drop-down in that case, rather than checkboxes, since it does not make sense to check both at once. Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=33292 [Bug 33292] Claim return doesn't refund lost item charge when MarkLostItemsAsReturned includes "When marking an item as a return claim" and "Refund lost item fee" is on -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 5

[Bug 27919] New: Split Claims Return from LOST
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 20 May '26

20 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=27919 Bug ID: 27919 Summary: Split Claims Return from LOST Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: 20.05 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Circulation Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: bwsdonna(a)gmail.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com, kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com It would be helpful to libraries if Claims Returned was moved out of the Lost Value. It is confusing for patrons and staff to see a Claims Return as a Lost item, and there are times when an item needs to be marked both as Lost and as Claim Return, and combining those into one field can be a challenge. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 62

[Bug 33997] New: Borrowers.updated_on should not be updated by track_login
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 19 May '26

19 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=33997 Bug ID: 33997 Summary: Borrowers.updated_on should not be updated by track_login 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: matt.blenkinsop(a)ptfs-europe.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com, kyle.m.hall(a)gmail.com Currently borrowers.updated_on is updated by track_login even though a login is not an update to the patron record. This update needs to be blocked so that the updated_on field accurately reflects updates to the patron. Logins are supposed to be tracked by borrowers.lastseen which track_login already does. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 34

[Bug 38902] New: Allow holds fine limit (maxoutstanding) to be determined by patron category
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 19 May '26

19 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38902 Bug ID: 38902 Summary: Allow holds fine limit (maxoutstanding) to be determined by patron category Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Hold requests Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: raina(a)flo.org QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt(a)gmail.com The system preference “maxoutstanding” is used to determine when patrons are blocked from making holds in the OPAC. For example, maxoutstanding: Prevent patrons from making holds on the OPAC if they owe more than 5 USD in fines. This is separate from the checkout fine limit (noissuescharge). Currently the maxoutstanding preference is applied to all patrons, and there's no way of changing the value for individual patron categories. Bug 28924 enables checkout fine limit to be set by patron category, but there's no way of changing the value for "maxoutstanding" by patron category, which means that all patron groups will still be blocked from placing holds in the OPAC at the same amount. It would be helpful to be able to determine when patrons should be blocked from making holds in the OPAC by patron category, like bug 28924 does for the checkout fine limit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 38755] New: search_for_data_inconsistencies.pl: Fix list of inconsistencies
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 19 May '26

19 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38755 Bug ID: 38755 Summary: search_for_data_inconsistencies.pl: Fix list of inconsistencies Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: Main Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P5 - low Component: Command-line Utilities Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: magnus(a)libriotech.no QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: robin(a)catalyst.net.nz The relevant POD looks like this: ----------------------------------------------------- =head1 DESCRIPTION Catch data inconsistencies in Koha database * Items with undefined homebranch and/or holdingbranch * Authorities with undefined authtypecodes/authority types * Item types: * if item types are defined at item level (item-level_itypes=specific item), then items.itype must be set else biblioitems.itemtype must be set * Item types defined in items or biblioitems must be defined in the itemtypes table * Invalid MARCXML in bibliographic records * Patrons with invalid category types due to lower and upper age limits * Any date fields in the database (timestamp, datetime, date) set to 0000-00-00 =cut ----------------------------------------------------- perldoc renders the list as running text, which is kind of hard to read. The list should either be formatted with "=item" or indented to be treated as "pre formatted" chunk of text. I would vote for the first option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

1 7

[Bug 31791] New: Add the ability to lock records to prevent modification through the Koha staff interface(s).
by bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org 15 May '26

15 May '26

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31791 Bug ID: 31791 Summary: Add the ability to lock records to prevent modification through the Koha staff interface(s). Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: new feature Priority: P5 - low Component: Cataloging Assignee: koha-bugs(a)lists.koha-community.org Reporter: nick(a)bywatersolutions.com QA Contact: testopia(a)bugs.koha-community.org CC: m.de.rooy(a)rijksmuseum.nl - Add a read-only field - The read-only field will only be editable by superlibrarian - Koha can update these internally for related routines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 124