https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40869 David Gustafsson <glasklas@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |Needs Signoff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40869 --- Comment #2 from David Gustafsson <glasklas@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 186885 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=186885&action=edit Bug 40869: Fix tests and documentation after changing argument name -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40869 Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Needs Signoff |Failed QA --- Comment #4 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- Reading through the test plan I wonder if this is the right solution or not. I can see the merit for values like homebranch/holdingbranch. We usually use a "Default" with the branchcode for these, but don't set the fields to mandatory. My first reaction would be, that we should display an error message somewhere if a mandatory field is hidden from a form on saving. I believe that would match the behavior we see in other places like patron self registration. If we move on with this: 1) QA tests fail (tidy) 2) Unit tests were updated for the name change, but I feel there should be additional tests for the difference between mandatory and optional hidden fields as well (up to QA) (setting failed QA to raise attention of the developer and for 1) and 2). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40869 David Gustafsson <glasklas@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #186885|0 |1 is obsolete| | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40869 --- Comment #5 from David Gustafsson <glasklas@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 208477 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=208477&action=edit Bug 40869: Preserve mandatory fields even if hidden when duplicating item Preserve mandatory fields while when duplicating an item, also when they are non visible. To test: 1) Go to MARC bibliographic framwork and view the marc structure for some framework. 2) Select edit subfield b for tag 952 and make it non visible 3) Go to a biblio using the framework above and edit an item. In the "actions" dropdown, choose to duplicate an item. 4) Now go to the detail page for the biblio, "Current library" should be empty and it should produce a 500 error. 5) Apply patch. 6) Perform steps 3-4 for some other biblio using the same framework. 7) The "Current library" should now be set to the same value as the source item, and no crash should occur. Sponsored-by: Gothenburg University Library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40869 --- Comment #7 from David Gustafsson <glasklas@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 208479 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=208479&action=edit Bug 40869: Fix incorrect argument name Patch from commit 67a0cb1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40869 David Gustafsson <glasklas@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Failed QA |Needs Signoff --- Comment #9 from David Gustafsson <glasklas@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #4)

Reading through the test plan I wonder if this is the right solution or not.

I can see the merit for values like homebranch/holdingbranch. We usually use a "Default" with the branchcode for these, but don't set the fields to mandatory.

My first reaction would be, that we should display an error message somewhere if a mandatory field is hidden from a form on saving. I believe that would match the behavior we see in other places like patron self registration.

If we move on with this:

1) QA tests fail (tidy) 2) Unit tests were updated for the name change, but I feel there should be additional tests for the difference between mandatory and optional hidden fields as well (up to QA)

(setting failed QA to raise attention of the developer and for 1) and 2).

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding tidy issues I can't manage to reproduce that. I've run the tidy script on affected files and they remain the same for me. I added a test for a hidden and required subfield. I'm not really able to change the behavior to display an error instead, as the this is what we need, and if the behavior changed we would probably need a custom patch to change it back to this one. I'm not sure, but since the branchcode is a hidden field for us, I'm not even sure a default value would solve the problem, but I'm not sure regarding that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.