[Bug 19826] New: Introduce Koha::Acquisition::Budget(s) and Koha:: Acquisition::Fund(s)
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Bug ID: 19826 Summary: Introduce Koha::Acquisition::Budget(s) and Koha::Acquisition::Fund(s) Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing Assignee: koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org Reporter: tomascohen@gmail.com QA Contact: testopia@bugs.koha-community.org In order to implement budgets and funds endpoints, we need to provide a way to get them through the Koha::Object(s) layer instead of just DBI+hashref. This way we can take advantage of DBIC annotations, TO_JSON, helper params handling and query builder, etc. -- 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=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|koha-bugs@lists.koha-commun |tomascohen@gmail.com |ity.org | CC| |kyle@bywatersolutions.com, | |matthias.meusburger@biblibr | |e.com, | |nick@bywatersolutions.com -- 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=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |Needs Signoff Patch complexity|--- |Trivial patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #1 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 69848 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=69848&action=edit Bug 19826: Add K::Acq::Budget(s) and K::Acq::Fund(s) This patch introduces Koha::Object(s)-derived classes for budgets and funds (aqbudgetperiods and aqbudgets respectively). C4::Budgets already uses DBIC calls on those tables so transition should be easy on top of this. To test: - Check the referenced schema files are the right ones. - QA scripts shoudl be happy. - Sign off :-D Note: the POD coverage report throws a false negative result on singular classes which is trivially wrong. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #2 from Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> --- I think it would be better to use Koha::Acquisition::Budgets and Koha::Acquisitions::Budgets::Funds instead of having both modules be siblings. My proposed names would indicate the actual hierarchy and relationship of budgets and funds where funds belong to a given budget. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #69848|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #3 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 69849 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=69849&action=edit Bug 19826: Add K::Acq::Budget(s) and K::Acq::Budget::Fund(s) This patch introduces Koha::Object(s)-derived classes for budgets and funds (aqbudgetperiods and aqbudgets respectively). C4::Budgets already uses DBIC calls on those tables so transition should be easy on top of this. To test: - Check the referenced schema files are the right ones. - QA scripts shoudl be happy. - Sign off :-D Note: the POD coverage report throws a false negative result on singular classes which is trivially wrong. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #4 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #2)
I think it would be better to use Koha::Acquisition::Budgets and Koha::Acquisitions::Budgets::Funds instead of having both modules be siblings. My proposed names would indicate the actual hierarchy and relationship of budgets and funds where funds belong to a given budget.
I agree with indicating the relationship. I've submitted a modified version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Aleisha Amohia <aleisha@catalyst.net.nz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Needs Signoff |Signed Off -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Aleisha Amohia <aleisha@catalyst.net.nz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #69849|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #5 from Aleisha Amohia <aleisha@catalyst.net.nz> --- Created attachment 69891 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=69891&action=edit [SIGNED-OFF] Bug 19826: Add K::Acq::Budget(s) and K::Acq::Budget::Fund(s) This patch introduces Koha::Object(s)-derived classes for budgets and funds (aqbudgetperiods and aqbudgets respectively). C4::Budgets already uses DBIC calls on those tables so transition should be easy on top of this. To test: - Check the referenced schema files are the right ones. - QA scripts shoudl be happy. - Sign off :-D Note: the POD coverage report throws a false negative result on singular classes which is trivially wrong. Signed-off-by: Aleisha Amohia <aleishaamohia@hotmail.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-c | |ommunity.org Status|Signed Off |Failed QA --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- Tests are missing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |julian.maurice@biblibre.com | |, katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de, | |m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #4)
(In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #2)
I think it would be better to use Koha::Acquisition::Budgets and Koha::Acquisitions::Budgets::Funds instead of having both modules be siblings. My proposed names would indicate the actual hierarchy and relationship of budgets and funds where funds belong to a given budget.
I agree with indicating the relationship. I've submitted a modified version.
I do not, CCing more QA people to get their opinions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #8 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #7)
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #4)
(In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #2)
I think it would be better to use Koha::Acquisition::Budgets and Koha::Acquisitions::Budgets::Funds instead of having both modules be siblings. My proposed names would indicate the actual hierarchy and relationship of budgets and funds where funds belong to a given budget.
I agree with indicating the relationship. I've submitted a modified version.
I do not, CCing more QA people to get their opinions.
What about Biblio and Item ? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #9 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- Hm, can understand both sides. Bibio and Item is a good example, others I can think of: aqbasket and aqorder. Is there a technical reason we shoudl do one or the other? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #10 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #9)
Hm, can understand both sides. Bibio and Item is a good example, others I can think of: aqbasket and aqorder. Is there a technical reason we shoudl do one or the other?
It is mostly a matter of taste, and how devs are used to read names and infere things from them. In my opinion, if theres a one-to-many relationship, I is more obvious if I'm unfamiliar with the codebase, when I read it the way I wrote the patches. I can re-submit the original version if the RM requires it. Or if there's some decision making deciding. Maybe worth voting on the next dev meeting. I bet it will be 2-2 and 6/8 people saying don't care LOL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #11 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #8)
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #7)
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #4)
(In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #2)
I think it would be better to use Koha::Acquisition::Budgets and Koha::Acquisitions::Budgets::Funds instead of having both modules be siblings. My proposed names would indicate the actual hierarchy and relationship of budgets and funds where funds belong to a given budget.
I agree with indicating the relationship. I've submitted a modified version.
I do not, CCing more QA people to get their opinions.
What about Biblio and Item ? :)
That's a good rename too :-D -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #12 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #6)
Tests are missing.
Is use_ok() enough? I can submit a followup for each class. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #69891|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #13 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 69918 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=69918&action=edit Bug 19826: Add K::Acq::Budget(s) and K::Acq::Budget::Fund(s) This patch introduces Koha::Object(s)-derived classes for budgets and funds (aqbudgetperiods and aqbudgets respectively). C4::Budgets already uses DBIC calls on those tables so transition should be easy on top of this. To test: - Check the referenced schema files are the right ones. - QA scripts shoudl be happy. - Sign off :-D Note: the POD coverage report throws a false negative result on singular classes which is trivially wrong. Signed-off-by: Aleisha Amohia <aleishaamohia@hotmail.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #14 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 69919 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=69919&action=edit Bug 19826: Unit test files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Failed QA |Signed Off CC| |tomascohen@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #12)
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #6)
Tests are missing.
Is use_ok() enough? I can submit a followup for each class.
I usually reuse and adapt Cities.t, it introduces a base for next tests. (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #10)
In my opinion, if theres a one-to-many relationship, I is more obvious if I'm unfamiliar with the codebase, when I read it the way I wrote the patches.
Hum, so Koha::Acquisition::Vendor::Basket::Order? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #16 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #15)
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #10)
In my opinion, if theres a one-to-many relationship, I is more obvious if I'm unfamiliar with the codebase, when I read it the way I wrote the patches.
Hum, so Koha::Acquisition::Vendor::Basket::Order? :)
I'm not sure, I think there is a 1-1 relationship between baskets and orders? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- You can have several orders by basket, so it's 1-n -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #18 from Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #15)
Hum, so Koha::Acquisition::Vendor::Basket::Order? :)
Please, no :) Not everything can be represented in a tree. Where do you place basket groups in this hierarchy ? It could be Koha::Acq::Vendor::Basketgroup::Basket, but not every basket belongs to a basketgroup. Also, there is a 1-n relationship between biblio and aqorders, but Koha::Biblio::Orders does not make much sense IMHO. If there was a vote, I'd vote for everything on one level -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Signed Off |Passed QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #69918|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #19 from Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> --- Created attachment 70063 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=70063&action=edit Bug 19826: Add K::Acq::Budget(s) and K::Acq::Budget::Fund(s) This patch introduces Koha::Object(s)-derived classes for budgets and funds (aqbudgetperiods and aqbudgets respectively). C4::Budgets already uses DBIC calls on those tables so transition should be easy on top of this. To test: - Check the referenced schema files are the right ones. - QA scripts shoudl be happy. - Sign off :-D Note: the POD coverage report throws a false negative result on singular classes which is trivially wrong. Signed-off-by: Aleisha Amohia <aleishaamohia@hotmail.com> Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #69919|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=19826 --- Comment #20 from Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> --- Created attachment 70064 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=70064&action=edit Bug 19826: Unit test files Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Passed QA |In Discussion --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- (In reply to Julian Maurice from comment #18)
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #15)
Hum, so Koha::Acquisition::Vendor::Basket::Order? :)
Please, no :) Not everything can be represented in a tree. Where do you place basket groups in this hierarchy ? It could be Koha::Acq::Vendor::Basketgroup::Basket, but not every basket belongs to a basketgroup. Also, there is a 1-n relationship between biblio and aqorders, but Koha::Biblio::Orders does not make much sense IMHO.
If there was a vote, I'd vote for everything on one level
Not everything, but I would prefer Koha::Acq::Budget[s] and Koha::Acq::fund[s] too. Setting to In Discussion to get more opinions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #70063|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #22 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 70119 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=70119&action=edit Bug 19826: Add K::Acq::Budget(s) and K::Acq::Fund(s) This patch introduces Koha::Object(s)-derived classes for budgets and funds (aqbudgetperiods and aqbudgets respectively). C4::Budgets already uses DBIC calls on those tables so transition should be easy on top of this. To test: - Check the referenced schema files are the right ones. - QA scripts shoudl be happy. - Sign off :-D Note: the POD coverage report throws a false negative result on singular classes which is trivially wrong. Signed-off-by: Aleisha Amohia <aleishaamohia@hotmail.com> Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #70064|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #23 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 70120 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=70120&action=edit Bug 19826: Unit test files Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|In Discussion |Passed QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #24 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #21)
(In reply to Julian Maurice from comment #18)
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #15)
Hum, so Koha::Acquisition::Vendor::Basket::Order? :)
Please, no :) Not everything can be represented in a tree. Where do you place basket groups in this hierarchy ? It could be Koha::Acq::Vendor::Basketgroup::Basket, but not every basket belongs to a basketgroup. Also, there is a 1-n relationship between biblio and aqorders, but Koha::Biblio::Orders does not make much sense IMHO.
If there was a vote, I'd vote for everything on one level
Not everything, but I would prefer Koha::Acq::Budget[s] and Koha::Acq::fund[s] too. Setting to In Discussion to get more opinions.
I don't really care, really. I've moved Fund(s).pm one level up, and marked PQA so Matthias can code the funds endpoint on top of this. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #25 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- I am ok with this approach - I think our relations could get confusing fast. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #70120|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #26 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- Created attachment 70156 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=70156&action=edit Bug 19826: Add tests -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #27 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- If you are going to reuse these new modules, I expect that you will replace the different subroutines using DBIC directly in C4::Budgets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 --- Comment #28 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #27)
If you are going to reuse these new modules, I expect that you will replace the different subroutines using DBIC directly in C4::Budgets
I will :-D. Matthias is the one using this on the funds endpoint, though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #70156|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #29 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- Created attachment 70157 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=70157&action=edit Bug 19826: Add tests -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Passed QA |Pushed to Master --- Comment #30 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- Pushed to master for 18.05, thanks to everybody involved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |19661 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19661 [Bug 19661] Funds endpoint -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|Pushed to Master |RESOLVED --- Comment #31 from Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> --- Enhancement, skipping for 17.11.x. Awesome work everybody! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19826 Fridolin SOMERS <fridolin.somers@biblibre.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |15408 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=15408 [Bug 15408] Timestamp on funds not updated when you duplicate a budget -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org