http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14694 --- Comment #20 from Kyle M Hall <kyle.m.hall@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #18)
(In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #17)
6 vs 5
That is a purposeful change. The issue was that the logic of the unit test was off by one. The assumption was that the number of holds must greater than or equal to, but as per the code and sys pref definition, the number of holds must be simply greater than. Thus adding one more hold fixes all the tests.
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #14)
+ if ( $holds->count() <= $threshold ) {
And an inclusive here.
So should this be < also?
No, that is the correct comparison. If you look at the descritions for the two high holds behavior options you will see the static ( original ) version requires a < comparison, and the new dynamic versions needs <=.
::: Koha/Biblio.pm @@ +41,5 @@
+or list of Koha::Item objects in list context. + +=cut + +sub items {
Wouldn't be better to use a DBIx::Class relation? Something like bug 14819.
No, we want to return a Koha::Object object, not a DBIC object. It would be most confusing if a Koha::Object method were to return a DBIC object instead of a Koha Object.
What about these 2 comments?
-- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.