https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28743 Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.koha-community | |.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi | |?id=10263 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28743 Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |Needs Signoff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28743 Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #123068|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #3 from Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> --- Comment on attachment 123068 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=123068 Proposed fix Found a bug in the patch. Will replace the patch shortly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28743 --- Comment #5 from Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> --- (In reply to David Cook from comment #2)

The title of this report doesn't make sense. Bibliographic records don't belong to library branches.

Also, blocking based on homebranch of items that belong to the record doesn't make sense. You'd block modifications of bib records as soon as an item is added for another branch. Branch A might add the bib record, but then if Branch B adds an item, Branch A won't be able to edit the bib record that they added. I could see that being frustrating.

But I can also see it being frustrating to have a different branch change a bib record that you're using. Hmm...

This is a pit-fall with IndependantBranches. As you observe it is frustrating to not be able to change a record, but also frustrating to have someone else change a record you are using. I have a little fork (patch submitted on another enhancement) that hides items from other libraries, so we don't even know when someone else is using a record. Our solution was this; since we can't see when a record is shared we will block changes to those records. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28743 --- Comment #7 from Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #6)

Hi Michael,

as David pointed out, currently with IndependentBranches the records are shared and there are no limitations to editing them. A record doesn't belong to any library, everyone can edit. I think this is a too big change to existing behavior that will be unwanted by many, so it should be made strictly optional.

I also believe we might not want to add a new concept like this on top of IndependentBranches. In my opinion it needs more hashing out and it would look better in the new library group settings that I hope will replace IndependentBranches at some point in the not too soon future.

Also there are a lot of edge cases here I am not sure about:

* If shared records cannot be edited by libraries using it, who can edit it to fix issues? * What about records for electronics, serials etc. that don't need to necessarily have items? * What about the Advanced cataloguing editor?

There is also no test plan here, please add one to your commit message. Also take a look at how the subject etc. should look like: https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Commit_messages

Should be easy to implement this with a new type of library group. I haven't done that before though, so I'd have to go through the code to figure that out. The point of a record not belonging to any library (or library group) is pivotal here. The best I can think of would be adding a column to the biblio(items) table to hold either the branch or branch group claiming the record, or maybe that could be added through the biblio_metadata. This would cover your second edge case too, as electronics and serials could be given an owner that way. I used C4::Context->only_my_library() in the patch, so SuperLibrarians would still be able to edit shared records, which addresses your first edge case. The third edge case is also a bit sticky for me. It would mean, to me, greatly increasing the size of the patch, as I would also want to expand this to the cataloging search and import batch record matching. I figure once we start declaring that a branch group owns a record, then we'd want to limit cataloging to only records owned by the group or with no owner. That would pretty much eliminate the cases of shared records between library groups, but also reduce the ability to reuse records. Or, in cataloging, limit actions on records owned by another library group to just duplicating the record. I feel that to fully flesh-out the feature that would be the way to go, but maybe I'm over-thinking it. If there is some interest in the feature I could work on the library groups and advanced editor points, at least. I'm also willing to withdraw the bug (I don't see a "Won't Fix" status, so push it to "In Discussion" I guess), if there isn't any interest. -- 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=28743 Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Failed QA |In Discussion --- Comment #9 from Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> --- The use case is that we have records with multiple libraries using the record, but they can't see each other's items (because of a local patch) so they don't know it's a shared record. We came up with the hard lock as a way to prevent libraries from changing records which other libraries are also using in that case. I'd be fine with recording the "first library to use a record" in the biblio_metadata, or doing as the original patch does, which is to check if other branches are using it. And maybe it would be fine to go from this hard lock to just the warning (and add that warning to the advanced editor too). I can see wording such as "Warning: this is a shared record and should not be changed with out consulting the other libraries: [list of other libraries]". That may be the optimum compromise here, taking out the hard lock, and having that warning on the relevant pages. I'd have to discuss it with my librarians, but I don't think that will be a hard sell for most of them. I welcome your thoughts on this idea as well, of course. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28743 --- Comment #11 from Michael Hafen <michael.hafen@washk12.org> --- That's a little beyond the scope of what I need, but sounds like a cool enhancement. It would take adding many sub-permissions to support it. If you take super-librarian as the one that can change anything, then there would be four additional permissions to add. Plus the code would have to be added to the marc editor and advanced marc editor to support that granularity of operations instead of just all-or-nothing like we have now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.