https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=23207 --- Comment #30 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #28)
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #27)
1. Entry missing in misc/cronjobs/crontab.example
Good catch.
2. Any good reasons to not add the info in a new column of the itemtypes table?
You mean is missing the COMMENT?
admin/itemtypes.pl => The info is not in the table. (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #29)
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #28)
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #27)
1. Entry missing in misc/cronjobs/crontab.example
Good catch.
2. Any good reasons to not add the info in a new column of the itemtypes table?
You mean is missing the COMMENT?
Not sure if it#s there already, but I think waht's meant was administration
itemtypes - showing the setting there in column, so you can filter etc.
3. (just grumbling) we really need to remove the item type at biblio level (item-level_itypes syspref) and have a FK on items.itemtype. Not having the ability to join here is terrible, we have to loop over all the checkouts... Not considering blocker but we may want to improve perf here in the future using the usual (ugly) condition for the join.
This is a broader discussion, but biblio-level itype is really a thing, because it is used for filtering and facets as well.
I agree, we cannot remove the itemtype on biblio-level, it's tied to varioud features and checks (max reserves check for biblio level holds, article requests without items etc.) We could maybe remove it from MARC/only add it for indexing maybe?
Definitely not the place to have the discussion, but we discussed it already several times and mostly agreed on removing it... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.