From what I can see in the code, this isn't actually true. CheckReserves does not include neither LOST nor WITHDRAWN in its checks. In fact, we use the LOST
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=21495 Bug ID: 21495 Summary: Regression in hold override functionality Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 - low Component: Hold requests Assignee: koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org Reporter: stefan.berndtsson@ub.gu.se QA Contact: testopia@bugs.koha-community.org CC: gmcharlt@gmail.com The changes made by Bug 11512 causes regression in functionality. That change assumes it is safe to override only tooManyReserves because other holds will not be filled anyway. [The rest is copied from Comment 14 in the bug, explaining our usecase] part here in Gothenburg. When longoverdue.pl marks a book as LOST, our staff adds a reserve to that item, so that they will be notified if it is returned. With the code prior to this patch, this works perfectly fine since we have the AllowHoldPolicyOverride set and returning a LOST item fills the hold. The same logic applies to WITHDRAWN. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.