https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14237 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kyle@bywatersolutions.com --- Comment #8 from Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #7)

I am still really torn about what the best approach here would be :(

Add a bilbionumber column to course_items

+ All contents of a course reserve are in one table - We will only be using ci_id, biblionumber, and timestamp columns, other columns won't be used as they are all item specific

Add a new table, course_records or similar

- Need to check 2 tables to get all contents + Table is more specific, ci_id, biblionumber and timestamp will be enough

? We do something similar in the reserves table already (item and record level holds are distinguised by a filled itemnumber column). But not sure if that is a good pattern to follow. Also all other columns are used for both, so it seems to make mor sense there.

What I am not sure is about what is better for database constraints and such? If a record is deleted, I think we'd want to delete it from the table by constraint as well.

I'm fine with either solution. Using the existing table does make some sense, but would require rewriting a decent amount of the existing code. A separate table would be a cleaner add-on, as existing code wouldn't need to be touched much. In either case, ON DELETE CASCADE fk constraints should definitely be implemented. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.