[Bug 9834] New: Should reverting a waiting hold keep the item number?
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9834 Bug ID: 9834 Summary: Should reverting a waiting hold keep the item number? Classification: Unclassified Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Hold requests Assignee: koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org Reporter: m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl CC: gmcharlt@gmail.com When you confirm a hold, the item number is saved with the reserve. In case you revert the waiting status for some reason (probably exceptional), the hold becomes an item level hold. Unfortunately, you cannot know anymore if that was the case when the hold was placed. I would argue that it is more likely that it was not a item level hold. So why not remove the item number by default? Could we add a checkbox when doing the revert allowing the librarian to actively say "keep the item number" ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9834 M. de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|enhancement |normal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9834 Kyle M Hall <kyle.m.hall@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kyle.m.hall@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Kyle M Hall <kyle.m.hall@gmail.com> --- The itemnumber is kept as a 'better safe than sorry' approach. That is, it is better to make sure the patron gets exactly the item they wanted rather than risk giving the patron an item he or she didn't want. I think the solution is to just add a new field 'hold_level' to the reserves table that is marked as 'bib' or 'item' when a reserve is first placed. That way we can know at the time of reversion if we need to remove the itemnumber or not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9834 Mickey Coalwell <mcoalwell@nekls.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mcoalwell@nekls.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9834 Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |liz@catalyst.net.nz --- Comment #2 from Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> --- My feeling is that if it started as an "any available" it should go back to that. But yea, we'd have to know if it was placed that way in order to put it back. Practically, the current way might mean that a borrower waits an extra circ period for their reserve, which is bad service by the library. Liz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9834 Marc Véron <veron@veron.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |veron@veron.ch --- Comment #3 from Marc Véron <veron@veron.ch> --- Still valid? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org