https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 --- Comment #1 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- Created attachment 56984 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=56984&action=edit Bug 17519: Item editor handles clearing dateaccessioned and replacementpricedate inconsistently This patch adds dateaccessioned to the hash built by Items routine _build_default_values_for_mod_marc, used in ModItemFromMarc when modifying an item. Normally, dateaccessioned will already have a value, and this change has no effect. The only exception is: when you modify an item and for some reason want to clear the dateaccessioned field, the item editor did not respond to that change. This change makes it possible to do so. This is consistent with the other date in the item editor (replacementpricedate) where you can already clear the date. Test plan: [1] Do not yet apply this patch. [2] Try to clear date acquired and replacementpricedate in the Item editor. Save and check results. You should still find the original date acquired in the saved record. [3] Apply the patch (restart Plack?), restore replacementpricedate, and repeat step 2. Both dates should be cleared. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 Marc Véron <veron@veron.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #56984|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #2 from Marc Véron <veron@veron.ch> --- Created attachment 61013 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=61013&action=edit Bug 17519: Item editor handles clearing dateaccessioned and replacementpricedate inconsistently This patch adds dateaccessioned to the hash built by Items routine _build_default_values_for_mod_marc, used in ModItemFromMarc when modifying an item. Normally, dateaccessioned will already have a value, and this change has no effect. The only exception is: when you modify an item and for some reason want to clear the dateaccessioned field, the item editor did not respond to that change. This change makes it possible to do so. This is consistent with the other date in the item editor (replacementpricedate) where you can already clear the date. Test plan: [1] Do not yet apply this patch. [2] Try to clear date acquired and replacementpricedate in the Item editor. Save and check results. You should still find the original date acquired in the saved record. [3] Apply the patch (restart Plack?), restore replacementpricedate, and repeat step 2. Both dates should be cleared. Followed test plan, date acquired can be deleted as expected. Signed-off-by: Marc Véron <veron@veron.ch> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 --- Comment #3 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Marc Véron from comment #2)

Signed-off-by: Marc Véron <veron@veron.ch>

Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 --- Comment #5 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #4)

It seems that replacement price is ok before this patch, and the patch does not affect it. Should we rename the bug report and the commit msg?

No problem. What would you suggest? The inconsistency is in the comparison between how both fields behave. So maybe: Handle clearing dateaccessioned just like replacementpricedate? Or just Fix clearing dateaccessioned? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 --- Comment #7 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #6)

Marcel, sorry but I do not understand your answer. I am just saying that replacementpricedate is working correctly without your patch, so we should remove it from the bug title and commit message. Do you agree?

Yes, no problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Signed Off |In Discussion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 --- Comment #10 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- We have trained libraries that they don't have to fill out the field because Koha does it in the background automatically. I was wondering, because this patch talks about clearing the field. At the moment it's simply not possible to have an item without a dateaccessioned which is often used as creation data in various reports. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 --- Comment #12 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- Ok, so when adding an item the behaviour will be the same. But it will be possible to empty out the date on changing an item, correct? I am not sure how replacementpricedate was intended to work. I have heard somewhere that it was used to decrease the replacement price over time as the item aged, but not entirely sure. I am not sure we have any functionality tied to it at the moment in Koha itself. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|In Discussion |Signed Off --- Comment #14 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- The discussion seems to be finished ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|In Discussion |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #16 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #15)

Actually no - I just didn't have the time to write another answer.

I think this patch makes the behaviour inconsistent. If you can empty out on editing, but not on adding the item - that will look like a bug.

The behaviour right now is consistent as the field is forced to be mandatory and as I said, we rely on this in some contexts - for example in context of inventory books.

Maybe we should discuss use cases first?

Things that come to my mind: - new books list - inventory book (electronical, sometimes printed out) - sorting by accession date in the OPAC - weeding reports/workflows

OK. The current behavior is not really consistent (if you compare with the other date). But in view of its low importance, I would rather close this report now if it disturbs other users too much.. No problem! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17519 --- Comment #17 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- Sorry Marcel, didn't want to upset you - it just felt not 'quite right' yet to me. Maybe having a separate 'created_on' column on items would be a good idea long term. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.