https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18284 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #3)
I wish we flagged deleted rather than had deleted_* tables.. this sort of thing would be far less fraught with dangers that way.
I am just following the existing pattern, used twice already. Moreover the table already exists and we want to keep FK. Without 2 differents we could not keep the FK.
I would also do this at the DBIC level personally.. with a monkeypatch of the standard delete call.
With a critical or blocker I always try to provide as small fix as possible to avoid any integration problems. Without using DBIx::Class I avoid creating 2 new packages + provide tests (~100 lines minimum). (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #4)
Comment on attachment 61193 [details] [review] New FIXME..?
Yes? What's wrong with FIXME? I provide code that is not good, I highlight it in the codebase.
::: C4/Biblio.pm @@ +3361,4 @@
my $sth = $dbh->prepare("SELECT * FROM biblio WHERE biblionumber=?"); $sth->execute($biblionumber);
+ # FIXME There is a transaction in _koha_delete_biblio_metadata
Why add the FIXME rather than adding the code to actually solve the problem?
Nested transactions work well in DBIC whenever I've used them
Yes of course, I use them in these tests and they pass. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.