http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9016 --- Comment #108 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com> --- (In reply to M. de Rooy from comment #107)
Follow-up QA Comment:
Thanks!
Good/promising feature. Looks good, but with some comments:
1) This patch series provides some groundwork for subsequent changes in follow-up reports. This means that not everything this patch seems to offer now, is actually used.
Actually it does not make sense to push this patch set alone. All patches from linked reports should be pushed at the same time.
2) At the last transport_type of tools/letter.pl a counter is displayed like: Message body: 11/160. It was not evident at the start for me that it meant 11 chars from max 160. No blocker, but could be improved later?
Hum, what do you propose?
3) When adding a new notice the first time, I was forced to add subject and contents for each transport type (Which I did not really like). BUT then I tried to reproduce this once again, and I couldn't. (Caching problem?) So no blocker. But I discovered one small thing: If I enter code and name on the top, and do not fill anything further. The program seems to accept that and save, but actually it just ignores what I typed. Maybe we should catch that situation. No blocker btw. And another more annoying one (maybe more theoretical indeed): Fill in code, name and the SECOND mtt. Now it will save one letter (including the name). But it will not pickup the name again when editing this notice. (One of the last patches dealt with something similar.)
I will try to have a look at this too.
4) In this report overdue notices are still handled by transport type email only. The commit message in one of the patches suggests otherwise. As I understand, the next patch series (10832) takes care of it.
Same as 1). Patches from bug 10832 should be pushed at the same time as this one.
5) On Overdue rules, I can enter a delay value and select a notice without selecting a transport type. The action is saved, but reads to me that Koha will not do anything with it. Should we warn the user here? No blocker for now. But could be improved.
I will try to provide a followup.
6) From a commit message: "if you insert a new line in your message_transport_types table, the overdues configuration table did not displayed an header."
Yes, Olli found this problem on testing the patch. I agreed with him, it is an issue and fixed it. It was in order to avoid further issues.
How would you add such a type? Just via sql? I understood that the interface will not offer such a functionality. I think that it is great that the interface immediately shows me overdue rules and notices for the new type. But on the other hand, we could discuss how sensible it really is to do so. No blocker, but an interesting discussion :)
I think it is more flexible to display all mtt existing in DB rather than dealing with "authorized" mtt in templates.
7) Just noting that tools/overduerules.pl contains sql code and you also add some. (Admin scripts are marked as an exception...)
Hum, yes... I didn't try to refactor this code. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.