https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20271 --- Comment #216 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #212)
Nice work everyone! I've been looking at the code and so far would like to mention: - I would prefer 'archived' instead of 'deleted' in the chosen terminology. And reserve 'delete' for permanent deletion.
There is deleted_on and is_current (comment 198 and later for the discussion).
- I'd suggest we split this bug into separate ones for each case to ease testing and have more people onboard. I know it might be frustrating to read this, but I think it is the best.
There is 2 years history in those commits, splitting them will break everything and add lot of work. I won't do that. I can help to push this one until the finish line but as it.
- In light of the work on the *reserves tables that was announced today, I'd suggest we review the column names (this could be done in a follow-up bug, but worth thinking about.
That's definitely something different.
- With the same spirit as the above comment, having views for the 'old tables' might be a good idea.
For the reports then you mean? I would personally prefer to add a warning in the report table if the deleted tables are used, but we could add a view. Adding views mean that we will keep them forever? If yes it will add work to maintain them, otherwise when are we going to remove them? Like 1 year after? 2 years?
- Can we merge biblio and biblioitems here?
Definitely out of the scope. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.