https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Andrew Fuerste-Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andrew@bywatersolutions.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- Created attachment 128206 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=128206&action=edit Bug 29012: Add default values for blank circulation rules that weren't saved to the database There are 5 fields that are not set if no value is provided when saving/editing a rule in Administration->Circulation and fines rules - issuelength - hardduedate - unseenrenewalsallowed - rentaldiscount - decreaseloanholds This is problematic because it gives the impression these rules are set as blank, but in reality they don't exist and the rule will fal back to the higher level To test: 1 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: All Hard due date: (Today) Lona period: 10 2 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: Books Hard due date: (leave blank) Loan period: 10 3 - Expected behaviour is Book item will checkout to teacher for 10 days, all other types will be due yesterday at 25:59:00 4 - Checkout an non-book item type to teacher 5 - Hard due date applies 6 - Checkout a 'book' item type to teacher 7 - Hard due date applies - FAIL -- 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=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |Needs Signoff --- Comment #3 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- Here is a possible solution. It just sets a default value if no value is specified when saving a rule. There is also an atomic update to update rules already in the database. We are testing it and would appreciate your feedback so I'm setting it as "Needs Signoff". Please advise me if this not correct. -- 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=29012 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- It's possible to search the circulation rules for the branch code, category code, and item type with either the specified values or null. The results can be sorted to get the most relevant value for each of the 3 parameters. These 3 values can be used to search for the rule. If there is no rule, the default value of the rule can be used. This should give the same result as the patch, but it makes looking up a rule a little more complicated. If it's better to keep the ability to inherit or fall back to a less specific set of rules, it would be necessary to specify if a value should be default or inherited when defining the rules (e.g. using a special value or checking a box). Rules that should be inherited wouldn't be saved and the current method of finding rules should fall back to the most relevant value of the rule. There is a problem since some rules depend on other rules (e.g. lengthunit). It would be necessary to either make sure that these rules are retrieved from the same set of rules or make these values self-contained (e.g. length and unit in the same value). As it is now, it's possible to retrieve the lengthunit from a set of rules without an issuelength and the issuelength from a less specific set of rules with a different lengthunit. -- 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=29012 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- The problem was that certain blank values weren't saved and it seemed reasonable to use default values when those values are blank. Do users expect these rules to fall back to higher rules? In the test case, hard due date for books is left blank and should not fall back to the rule for all items. So in this case, using the default value is expected. It is possible to allow falling back, but I'm not sure if it's the solution to this bug Which values do people think should be used? How should rules be calculated? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #128206|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #8 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- Created attachment 131043 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=131043&action=edit Bug 29012: Add default values for blank circulation rules that weren't saved to the database There are 5 fields that are not set if no value is provided when saving/editing a rule in Administration->Circulation and fines rules - issuelength - hardduedate - unseenrenewalsallowed - rentaldiscount - decreaseloanholds This is problematic because it gives the impression these rules are set as blank, but in reality they don't exist and the rule will fal back to the higher level To test: 1 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: All Hard due date: (Today) Lona period: 10 2 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: Books Hard due date: (leave blank) Loan period: 10 3 - Expected behaviour is Book item will checkout to teacher for 10 days, all other types will be due yesterday at 25:59:00 4 - Checkout an non-book item type to teacher 5 - Hard due date applies 6 - Checkout a 'book' item type to teacher 7 - Hard due date applies - FAIL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #131043|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #10 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- Created attachment 131053 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=131053&action=edit Bug 29012: Add default values for blank circulation rules that weren't saved to the database There are 5 fields that are not set if no value is provided when saving/editing a rule in Administration->Circulation and fines rules - issuelength - hardduedate - unseenrenewalsallowed - rentaldiscount - decreaseloanholds This is problematic because it gives the impression these rules are set as blank, but in reality they don't exist and the rule will fal back to the higher level To test: 1 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: All Hard due date: (Today) Lona period: 10 2 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: Books Hard due date: (leave blank) Loan period: 10 3 - Expected behaviour is Book item will checkout to teacher for 10 days, all other types will be due yesterday at 25:59:00 4 - Checkout an non-book item type to teacher 5 - Hard due date applies 6 - Checkout a 'book' item type to teacher 7 - Hard due date applies - FAIL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #12 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- (In reply to Kevin Carnes from comment #9)

(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #7)

...

(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #4)

...

I am not sure the patch is the correct way to fix it. If no value has not been filled in, we shouldn't default.

In my opinion we should better improve the way we calculate/retrieve the rules instead.

I think this fix is correct for current use of rules as a 'row' - we have all the current rules inthe table grouped, and don't expect to fall back on any individual column if a row is set for a patron/category type

I do think there are other issues: bug 28774 made rentaldiscount not save if blank, but creates the same issue here of defaulting to a higher rule level unseen_renewals of '0' seems to translate to 'unlimited' - I don't think that's correct

It appears that unseen_renewals is saved even when blank, so I removed it from the patch. Would somebody please confirm this?

Ok, unseen_renewals is only saved when UnseenRenewals is enabled. It now defaults to "" which is unlimited. '0' means none are allowed. It only starts counting unseen renewals when UnseenRenewals is not unlimited. It might make more sense to always count unseen renewals. The default value for rentaldiscount is 0, so it won't be blank and won't be affected by bug 28774. I also updated onboarding.pl for the Web installer. I don't know if there are any more rules that should be fixed there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Patch doesn't apply |Needs Signoff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #135194|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #15 from Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com> --- Created attachment 135998 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=135998&action=edit Bug 29012: Add default values for blank circulation rules that weren't saved to the database There are 5 fields that are not set if no value is provided when saving/editing a rule in Administration->Circulation and fines rules - issuelength - hardduedate - unseenrenewalsallowed - rentaldiscount - decreaseloanholds This is problematic because it gives the impression these rules are set as blank, but in reality they don't exist and the rule will fal back to the higher level To test: 1 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: All Hard due date: (Today) Lona period: 10 2 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: Books Hard due date: (leave blank) Loan period: 10 3 - Expected behaviour is Book item will checkout to teacher for 10 days, all other types will be due yesterday at 25:59:00 4 - Checkout an non-book item type to teacher 5 - Hard due date applies 6 - Checkout a 'book' item type to teacher 7 - Hard due date applies - FAIL Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #135998|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=29012 --- Comment #17 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- (In reply to Caroline Cyr La Rose from comment #16)

I tried to test, but I am unable to get the original "problematic" behaviour.

My rules are as follows: Patron category: Teacher Item type: Books Current checkouts allowed: 10 Current on-site checkouts allowed: 10 Loan period: 10 Hard due date: None defined (I didn't fill out anything else)

Patron category: Teacher Item type: All Current checkouts allowed: 10 Current on-site checkouts allowed: 10 Loan period: 10 Hard due date : Exactly on 2022-06-30 (I didn't fill out anything else)

I also have the All/All rule that comes with a sandbox Patron category: All Item type: All Current checkouts allowed: 5 Current on-site checkouts allowed: 5 Loan period: 5 Hard due date: None defined (etc.)

I checked out 39999000003857 (item-level itype = Music) to 23529000139858, and the due date was 2022-06-30 (today) I checked out 39999000010114 (item-level itype = Books) to the same patron and the due date was 2022-07-10 (ten days from now)

I'm not sure what I did differently than the test plan.

I tested this on the master branch and received the hard due date for both items. Was the patch for this bug ever applied on the sandbox? If the rules were created when the patch was applied, that would explain your results. You can try deleting the teacher rules and adding them again. You can also try testing it on another sandbox without any patches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Caroline Cyr La Rose <caroline.cyr-la-rose@inlibro.com> 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=29012 --- Comment #20 from Caroline Cyr La Rose <caroline.cyr-la-rose@inlibro.com> --- It worked on my local installation :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kyle@bywatersolutions.com QA Contact|testopia@bugs.koha-communit |kyle@bywatersolutions.com |y.org | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #138140|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #21 from Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> --- Created attachment 138309 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=138309&action=edit Bug 29012: Add default values for blank circulation rules that weren't saved to the database There are 5 fields that are not set if no value is provided when saving/editing a rule in Administration->Circulation and fines rules - issuelength - hardduedate - unseenrenewalsallowed - rentaldiscount - decreaseloanholds This is problematic because it gives the impression these rules are set as blank, but in reality they don't exist and the rule will fal back to the higher level To test: 1 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: All Hard due date: (Today) Lona period: 10 2 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: Books Hard due date: (leave blank) Loan period: 10 3 - Expected behaviour is Book item will checkout to teacher for 10 days, all other types will be due yesterday at 25:59:00 4 - Checkout an non-book item type to teacher 5 - Hard due date applies 6 - Checkout a 'book' item type to teacher 7 - Hard due date applies - FAIL Signed-off-by: Caroline Cyr La Rose <caroline.cyr-la-rose@inlibro.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=29012 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version(s)| |22.11.00 released in| | Status|Passed QA |Pushed to master -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version(s)|22.11.00 |22.11.00, 22.05.06 released in| | Status|Pushed to master |Pushed to stable --- Comment #24 from Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com> --- Backported to 22.05.x for 22.05.06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #26 from Andrew Nugged <nugged@gmail.com> --- Those who installed this on production will get issues with the circulation_rules table because of atomic update. So: On smart-rules.pl (Home > Administration > Circulation and fine rules): we have 5 tables: 1. Defining circulation and fine rules for all libraries (... for XXX branch, if branch selected) 2. Default checkout, hold and return policy (... for XXX branch, if branch selected) 3. Checkout, hold policy by patron category (... for XXX branch, if branch selected) 4. Lost item fee refund on return policy (... for XXX branch, if branch selected) 5. Holds policy by item type (... for XXX branch, if branch selected) and with dropdown, we can select rules for "Standard rules for all libraries" or switch to ANY of the available branches represented by the whole page. THE ISSUE: ... and this atomic update was intended to add "empty strings" and "zeroes" to: issuelength, hardduedate, unseenrenewalsallowed, rentaldiscount, decreaseloanholds values, and the intention of atomuc update looks like was to select ANY combination of branch/itemtype/category of else in DB, then for those, we should add those "zeroes" and "empty strings". Like it was "some rows in table 1 if only, then we add empty/zeroes". But those "any combination" also covers rules belonging NOT just to table 1 but also to tables 2..5, so if you don't have any rule for BRANCH in table 1 but you had something for the branch in tables 2,3,4,5 this atomic update adds orphan values for 'issuelength', 'hardduedate', 'unseenrenewalsallowed', 'rentaldiscount', 'decreaseloanholds'. And, EVEN WORSE: because those rules even will not be shown for the operator as RULES in table 1, but they still affect the results in circulation analysis as bigger priority rules than those without branches (i.e. "*"/all) so zero or '' value will be used as rule result for calculations. And nothing will be shown to the operator (!!!). For example, we just had on our production having "issuedate" "0" for some branches added by this atomic update because those branches had 'holdallowed' settings in table 5 (but nothing in table 1 in that per-branch-page!). But rule became efficient for all requests and made a real mess when borrowers had "today" issue return date & loan length (!!!). More complexity: this now can be fixed only by manually removing trash from circulation_rules but requires analysis, argh! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #28 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- (In reply to Andrew Nugged from comment #27)

so we need now to make new ticket & new atomic update for those affected to HEAL orphan rules from database (pretty complicated task as I see, btw).

Please create a new blocker bug, as this has already been released! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #30 from Andrew Nugged <nugged@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #28)

Please create a new blocker bug, as this has already been released!

yes, creating -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Slava Shishkin <slavashishkin@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |31737 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31737 [Bug 31737] Undef warnings around unseen_renewals_allowed in smart-rules.pl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #32 from Victor Grousset/tuxayo <victor@tuxayo.net> --- 22.05 and 21.11 rmaints got and email about reverting this -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Andrew Nugged <nugged@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|31727 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31727 [Bug 31727] Orphan records in circulation_rules and false positives after attempt to fix values to be empty or zeroes instead of missing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Andrew Nugged <nugged@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Pushed to stable |ASSIGNED --- Comment #33 from Andrew Nugged <nugged@gmail.com> --- ok, so everything what was done above this message is OBSOLETE now, Kevin Carnes, are you ok with committing here new solution from base? (please mind the patches if something were useful in Bug 31727 too). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |Needs Signoff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #36 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- (In reply to Andrew Nugged from comment #33)

ok, so everything what was done above this message is OBSOLETE now,

Kevin Carnes, are you ok with committing here new solution from base?

(please mind the patches if something were useful in Bug 31727 too).

Ok, now the patch includes all the changes including bugs 31727 and 31737, but without the new atomic update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #38 from Andrew Nugged <nugged@gmail.com> --- Slava/Kevin: I think it's because Tomás not yet reverted the master from old 29012. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #40 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- Created attachment 141877 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=141877&action=edit Revert "Bug 29012: (QA follow-up) Use q{} instead of '' in smart-rules.pl" This reverts commit 6f8e77b4e899d6f71fb8987975ba916a65dc8229. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #141869|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #42 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- Created attachment 141879 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=141879&action=edit Bug 29012: Add default values for blank circulation rules that weren't saved to the database There are 5 fields that are not set if no value is provided when saving/editing a rule in Administration->Circulation and fines rules - issuelength - hardduedate - unseenrenewalsallowed - rentaldiscount - decreaseloanholds This is problematic because it gives the impression these rules are set as blank, but in reality they don't exist and the rule will fal back to the higher level To test: 1 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: All Hard due date: (Today) Lona period: 10 2 - Set a rule for Patron category: Teacher Itemtype: Books Hard due date: (leave blank) Loan period: 10 3 - Expected behaviour is Book item will checkout to teacher for 10 days, all other types will be due yesterday at 25:59:00 4 - Checkout an non-book item type to teacher 5 - Hard due date applies 6 - Checkout a 'book' item type to teacher 7 - Hard due date applies - FAIL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #44 from Slava Shishkin <slavashishkin@gmail.com> --- Good, thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #46 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #45)

As we have time before release, and we have fixes - do we need to revert, or can we just fix the DB updates here and push those?

I think just fixing the DB updates here should be fine. Perhaps I misunderstood that this would be reverted (https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31727#c14). Since it hasn't been reverted yet, perhaps it's still possible to cancel the revert and just fix it here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #48 from Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> --- (In reply to Kevin Carnes from comment #46)

(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #45)

...

As we have time before release, and we have fixes - do we need to revert, or can we just fix the DB updates here and push those?

I think just fixing the DB updates here should be fine. Perhaps I misunderstood that this would be reverted (https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=31727#c14). Since it hasn't been reverted yet, perhaps it's still possible to cancel the revert and just fix it here.

Hi Kevin, Yes, please remove the revert patches and replace the original patches, along with a new patch to fix the DB update as a followup The code was reverted from stable - and i suggest we don't backport even after the fix -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #138310|1 |0 is obsolete| | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #141877|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=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #141879|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=29012 Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #141869|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=29012 --- Comment #50 from Kevin Carnes <kevin.carnes@ub.lu.se> --- Created attachment 141952 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=141952&action=edit Bug 29012: Fix undef warnings around unseen_renewals_allowed in smart-rules.pl Trivial fix. To reproduce: 1. Create or edit a rule on /cgi-bin/koha/admin/smart-rules.pl - i.e. submit the form (make POST request) 2. Notice the mentioned above warning in plack-intranet-error.log 3. Apply the patch. 4. Repeat step 1. 5. That warning in log file should be no more. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #141952|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=29012 Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.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=29012 --- Comment #52 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 142249 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=142249&action=edit Bug 29012: Fix undef warnings around unseen_renewals_allowed in smart-rules.pl Trivial fix. To reproduce: 1. Create or edit a rule on /cgi-bin/koha/admin/smart-rules.pl - i.e. submit the form (make POST request) 2. Notice the mentioned above warning in plack-intranet-error.log 3. Apply the patch. 4. Repeat step 1. 5. That warning in log file should be no more. Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #53 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Pushed to master for 22.11. Nice work everyone, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #54 from Arthur Suzuki <arthur.suzuki@biblibre.com> --- Thanks! Pushed to 21.11 for 21.11.12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Arthur Suzuki <arthur.suzuki@biblibre.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Pushed to stable |Pushed to oldstable -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 --- Comment #55 from Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> --- (In reply to Arthur Suzuki from comment #54)

Thanks!

Pushed to 21.11 for 21.11.12

This was reverted from 22.05, I think we should not backport this one -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart+koha@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version(s)|22.11.00,22.11.00,22.05.06, |22.11.00,22.05.06,21.11.12 released in|21.11.12 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29012 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33847 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=33847 [Bug 33847] Database update replaces undefined rules with defaults rather than the value that would be used -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.