- Koha-devel - lists.koha-community.org

Help with documentation
by Nicole Engard 27 May '10

27 May '10

Hello all, There are two areas of the manual (maybe more later) that I don't know enough about to write and would love some help from anyone. They are: 1.4.6. Classification Sources 1.4.7. Record Matching Rules You can either write a summary up for me and email it or you can update the manual via git: http://git.koha-community.org/gitweb/?p=kohadocs.git;a=summary Thanks in advance, Nicole

1 0

Koha apt repository -- ALPHA level
by Lars Wirzenius 26 May '10

26 May '10

I have built some Debian packages for Koha, and configured an apt repository for them at debian.koha-community.org, kindly set up by Galen. Right now, only I can upload packages to the repository, but if that turns out to be a problem, we'll add an upload queue later. This way, we got something to work now. See http://debian.koha-community.org/koha/README for instructions. Note that the repository and the packages are ALPHA level. I have tested them a bit locally, but I do not know if they will work for anyone else. Also, I may have forgotten some important steps from the documentation. Please notify me of any problems, I will attempt to fix them promptly. DO NOT install this on a production server. It will break things. There are two packages: * koha, if you just want a Koha up an running * koha-common, if you want to host several Koha instances Either way, you'll need to do some post-installation configuration. I have not attempted to make the Debian packages configure everything automatically, or to use debconf to ask questions from the user and use the answers to configure things. At least at this stage, I think it is better to go for something simple that works. I have, however, put in some effort to make the packages flexible enough to suit several kinds of installation. Most importantly, I have made it possible to automate the installation by using koha-common and a custom package that provides configuration details for koha-common. I have such a custom package, but it is not currently fit to be shared. However, if there is interest, I would be happy to make a sample package that people can customize. Anyway, I hope that these packages will grow to be useful to the Koha community. PS. For the initial package upload, I had to deviate from the Koha git master branch, but I hope to not do that in the future. I've sent all patches I did to koha-patches.

3 2

Bugzilla - call for additional administrators
by Galen Charlton 26 May '10

26 May '10

Hi, At present, Chris Cormack and I are the only people who have administrator-level accounts in the Bugzilla. I am calling for additional volunteers to become administrators, who would be responsible for helping to: * add, subtract, reassign, and modify components as needed * help handle requests for batch changes to bugs * perform other configuration and administrative tasks as needed In particular, I am looking for additional coverage outside of the US and NZ working hours. If you are interested, please respond publicly to this mailing list. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt(a)gmail.com

1 0

Bug assignees - call for volunteers
by Galen Charlton 26 May '10

26 May '10

Hi, The current list of default assignees for bug categories is here: http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=en:development:bug_default_assignees I am issuing a call for module experts to volunteer to be default assignees, and for existing assignees to confirm their willingness and availability to investigate, fix, and delegate bugs. By the time of the next general meeting (3 March 2010 at 19:00 UTC+0), please reply to this thread and signal if: * you want to be or remain as assignee for a component * you no longer want to be an assignee * you want to be added to the default CC list for a component In particular, one of the things we should figure out by the time of the meeting is which components do not have anybody actively interested in being assignee. I'm the default assignee for a lot of these, and would dearly like this to change. The components I'm specifically interested in remaining assignee for are: Architecture, internals, and plumbing Cataloging MARC Authority data support MARC Bibliographic data support MARC Bibliographic record staging/import Searching Z39.50 / SRU / OpenSearch Servers As a reminder, anybody who wants to work on a bug should feel free to do so, particularly if the bug's status hasn't been changed to 'assigned' - in other words, I don't think it should be the role of the bug assignees to have to explicitly fix or delegate every single bug in their components, just to watch over the component as a whole and ensure that important bugs do get addressed. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt(a)gmail.com

8 8

Re: [Koha-devel] Patrons with no Checkouts report
by Joe Atzberger 25 May '10

25 May '10

That seems pretty reasonable. Beneficial patches are accepted from anybody! > --joe > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Toni <arosa(a)tginet.com> wrote: > Hello, > >> > After looking into the code of the predefined report "Patrons with No > >> Checkouts" (borrowers_out.pl), I wonder whether the way it is generated > >> (at least in Koha version 3.0.5) is a Bug: > >> It only takes into consideration "old_issues" table, which means that > >> Patrons having items for the first time will appear in the list of > >> "Patrons with no Checkouts". > >> > Taking this case (first time users) into account should be as easy as > >> filtering out by the "issues" table in addition to the “old_issues” table. > >> > > Is it a BUG? Should I therefore report it? > >> If I report it, I could attach the necessary modification to make it work > >> taking in consideratin first time borrowers, Do you accept "casual" > >> patches from external people? > >> Thanks, > >> > Toni >

1 0

Re: [Koha-devel] Availability in Koha Was: Re: [Koha-patches] [PATCH 2/2] Fixes bug 4481: Limit to Available filters out many available items.
by Joe Atzberger 24 May '10

24 May '10

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Liz Rea <lrea(a)nekls.org> wrote: > While I agree with you that the 952$q as a measure of availability is > legitimate, I still think Koha *does* need one place for external > applications (like Autographics) to look for availability. You say this as though "availability" were one thing. If it were, then I would agree it would make sense. For your purposes, I think maybe we are talking specifically about a new availability-for-ILL-checkout? Not holds? Not renewals? This is different than the other kinds of availability we listed, closest to "available for transfer-for-checkout", but afaik not otherwise represented in Koha. BTW, I forgot to add "available-for-renewal" in the availability matrix also. One question is whether ILL availability is always computable from other existing statuses. I.E, would a "virtual" field suffice? Previous implementation suggests that users desire individual manual control (i.e. notforloan, notforhold... in this case "notforILL") that lives at the data row level and is toggleable "actual" data. This makes transactions more of a pain, but hey, it's what users seem to want. > Our statewide system ties into at least 7 different kinds of automation > systems, and according to information given to us by the statewide ILL > team, Koha is the only one that doesn't give authoritative > availability information in a single field. Whether that's correct or > not I admit I don't have first hand data to support the assertion. > Any code or documentation we might use as a reference implementation? > Shortcomings of that system aside, in my mind a complex system like > statewide ILL *should* only have to look at one field, instead of > compute availability from 20 different places. An ILL system might very well build logic that determines effective availability (and priority!) from it's own rules, involving geography, branch "system" affiliation, transfer costs, patron type/status, number of remaining copies (i.e., allow ILL as long as there is another copy on the shelf), balance of overall ILL transactions between branches or systems, round robin, age of the title since publication, age of the item since addition, etc. That is, in large part, the point of a separate ILL control system. If you want each discrete ILS to give one binary status, then the ILL system is not a controlling mechanism and it loses the ability to build more sophisticated rules. > Place the onus of > computing availability on the client ILS, instead of on the ILL > system. Why shouldn't we make it simple to interconnect these systems, > especially since most (if not all) of the other ILS's do? > It is already possible (though arguably not "simple") to integrate disparate systems for resource sharing via SIP2. OCLC uses SIP2 extensively to fetch real-time item availability info, and that standard still differentiates between: - circ status - checkout/access fee type - checkout/access fee amount - hold queue length - date due - recall date - hold pickup date - other item properties (size, weight, etc) ILL systems can and should care about different things. And it's very nice to hear from you, Joe. :) > You too, Liz. --Joe > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Joe Atzberger <ohiocore(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hey Liz -- > > It sounds like you would be trying to code AutoGraphics logic into Koha. > > Another user group might prefer the granularity that currently exists, or > > use software that requires it. Broadly speaking, we can imagine > > "availability" many different ways: > > > > available for checkout > > available for hold > > available for in house use > > available for pickup (on hold) > > available for transfer-for-checkout > > available for transfer-for-hold > > available for transfer-for-in-house-use > > available for recall > > available for electronic viewing > > available for electronic download > > > > Then matrix out all those possibilities with available-for-free, > > available-for-fee, and available-to-certain-patron-types, etc. > > In my opinion, it is not logical or desirable for a system to compress > all > > those values into one MARC subfield, for any purpose. Arguably the best > > standards-exposed item availability information is from the SIP2 Item > > Information (17/18) message pair, and that does not compress hold, > checkout, > > recall and fine info. > > If you still want to pursue representation in MARC, it should not > override > > the 952$q that for Koha otherwise just means date due. That info is > still > > quite valuable in a distinct form. > > Ian, I agree with some of your premises, but I don't see how adding a > > sometimes-user-configurable status with partial overlap of other statuses > > and undefined interaction properties under undefined permissions controls > > would make things "clearer". Think about it this way: if AutoGraphics > were > > another open source project, I'm pretty sure we would be talking about > > patching it, not Koha. Since it is not, and since it is in the company's > > financial interest and expertise to do so, I think this one is on them. > > --joe > > 2010/5/19 Liz Rea <lrea(a)nekls.org> > >> > >> While we're talking about availability, thought I'd put this out there. > >> Our statewide ILL system would really appreciate a single field for > >> availability on items: a "yes, you can have that for ILL" or "No, I'm > sorry, > >> that item is lost, checked out, out for repair, local use only, In > transit, > >> or any one of the plethora of other reasons why this item isn't > available." > >> The statewide system currently uses AutoGraphics, which can only check > one > >> field. We are currently having them check the 952$q. Here's a brief > rundown > >> from the coordinator of the statewide ILL: > >> "Since Koha puts status information into different subfields (rather > than > >> putting different statuses in the same subfield), we had to pick on > subfield > >> to look at. The KEGGr group decided that the best subfield to use was > the > >> 952$q. When an item is checked out, the date due appears in that > subfield > >> and AGent marks it as Not Available; if the $q is missing, the item is > >> presumed available. My understanding is that other statuses such as Lost > or > >> In Transit appear in different subfields. > >> > >> Other Z target catalogs use a single subfield for status information, so > >> when we look in the 852$s (for example), we might see On Shelf, or > Checked > >> Out, or Lost, or Mending, etc. Since there's just a single place to > look, we > >> can determine all of the different statuses and route requests > accordingly." > >> I wanted to make sure that an authoritative availability field is added > if > >> availability is revamped. It would make our life a whole lot easier. > >> Liz Rea > >> NEKLS > >> On May 19, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Ian Walls wrote: > >> > >> Thanks! I was sure there was an explanation for why the code was > >> originally commented out, and a more comprehensive system for > determining > >> 'availability' is definitely called for. I had some complaints from > folks > >> on our end that the link wasn't working at all, and the functionality I > get > >> by adding those lines back in is better for them that otherwise. > >> > >> I'll temporarily make use of my patch for these folks until a better one > >> is ready. Thanks for the update! > >> > >> > >> -Ian > >> > >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:08 PM, LAURENT Henri-Damien > >> <henridamien.laurent(a)biblibre.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Le 19/05/2010 00:04, Ian Walls a écrit : > >>> > From: Ian Walls <Ian.Walls(a)med.nyu.edu> > >>> > > >>> > --- > >>> > C4/Search.pm | 25 ++++++++++++------------- > >>> > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >>> > > >>> > diff --git a/C4/Search.pm b/C4/Search.pm > >>> > index 229ee40..e7c9c76 100644 > >>> > --- a/C4/Search.pm > >>> > +++ b/C4/Search.pm > >>> > @@ -1256,21 +1256,20 @@ sub buildQuery { > >>> > my $group_OR_limits; > >>> > my $availability_limit; > >>> > foreach my $this_limit (@limits) { > >>> > -# if ( $this_limit =~ /available/ ) { > >>> > -# > >>> > -## 'available' is defined as (items.onloan is NULL) and > >>> > (items.itemlost = 0) > >>> > -## In English: > >>> > -## all records not indexed in the onloan register (zebra) and all > >>> > records with a value of lost equal to 0 > >>> > -# $availability_limit .= > >>> > -#"( ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not onloan,AlwaysMatches='') and > >>> > (lost,st-numeric=0) )"; #or ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not > >>> > lost,AlwaysMatches='')) )"; > >>> > -# $limit_cgi .= "&limit=available"; > >>> > -# $limit_desc .= ""; > >>> > -# } > >>> > -# > >>> > + if ( $this_limit =~ /available/ ) { > >>> > + > >>> > +# 'available' is defined as (items.onloan is NULL) and > (items.itemlost > >>> > = 0) > >>> > +# In English: > >>> > +# all records not indexed in the onloan register (zebra) and all > >>> > records with a value of lost equal to 0 > >>> > + $availability_limit .= > >>> > +"( ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not onloan,AlwaysMatches='') and > >>> > (lost,st-numeric=0) )"; #or ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not > >>> > lost,AlwaysMatches='')) )"; > >>> > + $limit_cgi .= "&limit=available"; > >>> > + $limit_desc .= ""; > >>> > + } > >>> > + > >>> > # group_OR_limits, prefixed by mc- > >>> > # OR every member of the group > >>> > -# elsif ( $this_limit =~ /mc/ ) { > >>> > - if ( $this_limit =~ /mc/ ) { > >>> > + elsif ( $this_limit =~ /mc/ ) { > >>> > $group_OR_limits .= " or " if $group_OR_limits; > >>> > $limit_desc .= " or " if $group_OR_limits; > >>> > $group_OR_limits .= "$this_limit"; > >>> Hi Ian. > >>> Nahuel will work on a real fix for availability. > >>> Since at the moment customers are complaining (quite fairly) that > >>> availability cannot be at biblio level but should rather be at item > >>> level. > >>> And they are correct. > >>> But When indexing elements only at biblio level, we cannot provide them > >>> with the best accurate information. > >>> So Nahuel already did some work on that. > >>> But it need some improvement, which he will do soon. > > >

1 0

Re: [Koha-devel] Availability in Koha Was: Re: [Koha-patches] [PATCH 2/2] Fixes bug 4481: Limit to Available filters out many available items.
by Joe Atzberger 24 May '10

24 May '10

Hey Liz -- > It sounds like you would be trying to code AutoGraphics logic into Koha. > Another user group might prefer the granularity that currently exists, or use software that requires it. Broadly speaking, we can imagine "availability" many different ways: > - available for checkout - available for hold - available for in house use - available for pickup (on hold) - available for transfer-for-checkout - available for transfer-for-hold - available for transfer-for-in-house-use - available for recall - available for electronic viewing - available for electronic download Then matrix out all those possibilities with available-for-free, available-for-fee, and available-to-certain-patron-types, etc. > In my opinion, it is not logical or desirable for a system to compress all those values into one MARC subfield, for any purpose. Arguably the best standards-exposed item availability information is from the SIP2 Item Information (17/18) message pair, and that does not compress hold, checkout, recall and fine info. > If you still want to pursue representation in MARC, it should not override the 952$q that for Koha otherwise just means date due. That info is still quite valuable in a distinct form. > Ian, I agree with some of your premises, but I don't see how adding a sometimes-user-configurable status with partial overlap of other statuses and undefined interaction properties under undefined permissions controls would make things "clearer". Think about it this way: if AutoGraphics were another open source project, I'm pretty sure we would be talking about patching it, not Koha. Since it is not, and since it is in the company's financial interest and expertise to do so, I think this one is on them. > --joe 2010/5/19 Liz Rea <lrea(a)nekls.org> > While we're talking about availability, thought I'd put this out there. > >> > Our statewide ILL system would really appreciate a single field for > availability on items: a "yes, you can have that for ILL" or "No, I'm sorry, > that item is lost, checked out, out for repair, local use only, In transit, > or any one of the plethora of other reasons why this item isn't available." > >> > The statewide system currently uses AutoGraphics, which can only check one > field. We are currently having them check the 952$q. Here's a brief rundown > from the coordinator of the statewide ILL: > >> > "Since Koha puts status information into different subfields (rather than > putting different statuses in the same subfield), we had to pick on subfield > to look at. The KEGGr group decided that the best subfield to use was the > 952$q. When an item is checked out, the date due appears in that subfield > and AGent marks it as Not Available; if the $q is missing, the item is > presumed available. My understanding is that other statuses such as Lost or > In Transit appear in different subfields. > >> > Other Z target catalogs use a single subfield for status information, so > when we look in the 852$s (for example), we might see On Shelf, or Checked > Out, or Lost, or Mending, etc. Since there's just a single place to look, we > can determine all of the different statuses and route requests accordingly." > >> > I wanted to make sure that an authoritative availability field is added if > availability is revamped. It would make our life a whole lot easier. > >> > Liz Rea > >> NEKLS > >> > On May 19, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Ian Walls wrote: > >> > Thanks! I was sure there was an explanation for why the code was >> originally commented out, and a more comprehensive system for determining >> 'availability' is definitely called for. I had some complaints from folks >> on our end that the link wasn't working at all, and the functionality I get >> by adding those lines back in is better for them that otherwise. >> >> >> I'll temporarily make use of my patch for these folks until a better one >> is ready. Thanks for the update! >> >> >> >> -Ian >> >> >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:08 PM, LAURENT Henri-Damien < >> henridamien.laurent(a)biblibre.com> wrote: >> >> Le 19/05/2010 00:04, Ian Walls a écrit : >> >>> > From: Ian Walls <Ian.Walls(a)med.nyu.edu> >> >>> > >> >>> > --- >> >>> > C4/Search.pm | 25 ++++++++++++------------- >> >>> > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >>> > >> >>> > diff --git a/C4/Search.pm b/C4/Search.pm >> >>> > index 229ee40..e7c9c76 100644 >> >>> > --- a/C4/Search.pm >> >>> > +++ b/C4/Search.pm >> >>> > @@ -1256,21 +1256,20 @@ sub buildQuery { >> >>> > my $group_OR_limits; >> >>> > my $availability_limit; >> >>> > foreach my $this_limit (@limits) { >> >>> > -# if ( $this_limit =~ /available/ ) { >> >>> > -# >> >>> > -## 'available' is defined as (items.onloan is NULL) and >> (items.itemlost = 0) >> >>> > -## In English: >> >>> > -## all records not indexed in the onloan register (zebra) and all >> records with a value of lost equal to 0 >> >>> > -# $availability_limit .= >> >>> > -#"( ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not onloan,AlwaysMatches='') and >> (lost,st-numeric=0) )"; #or ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not >> lost,AlwaysMatches='')) )"; >> >>> > -# $limit_cgi .= "&limit=available"; >> >>> > -# $limit_desc .= ""; >> >>> > -# } >> >>> > -# >> >>> > + if ( $this_limit =~ /available/ ) { >> >>> > + >> >>> > +# 'available' is defined as (items.onloan is NULL) and (items.itemlost >> = 0) >> >>> > +# In English: >> >>> > +# all records not indexed in the onloan register (zebra) and all >> records with a value of lost equal to 0 >> >>> > + $availability_limit .= >> >>> > +"( ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not onloan,AlwaysMatches='') and >> (lost,st-numeric=0) )"; #or ( allrecords,AlwaysMatches='' not >> lost,AlwaysMatches='')) )"; >> >>> > + $limit_cgi .= "&limit=available"; >> >>> > + $limit_desc .= ""; >> >>> > + } >> >>> > + >> >>> > # group_OR_limits, prefixed by mc- >> >>> > # OR every member of the group >> >>> > -# elsif ( $this_limit =~ /mc/ ) { >> >>> > - if ( $this_limit =~ /mc/ ) { >> >>> > + elsif ( $this_limit =~ /mc/ ) { >> >>> > $group_OR_limits .= " or " if $group_OR_limits; >> >>> > $limit_desc .= " or " if $group_OR_limits; >> >>> > $group_OR_limits .= "$this_limit"; >> >>> Hi Ian. >> >>> Nahuel will work on a real fix for availability. >> >>> Since at the moment customers are complaining (quite fairly) that >> >>> availability cannot be at biblio level but should rather be at item >> level. >> >>> And they are correct. >> >>> But When indexing elements only at biblio level, we cannot provide them >> >>> with the best accurate information. >> >>> So Nahuel already did some work on that. >> But it need some improvement, which he will do soon. >> >>

1 0

[Koha] The Great Bugzilla move
by Chris Cormack 23 May '10

23 May '10

I notice that it has been re-enabled now, and my admin access revoked. I also note the old wiki has had the link to the new wiki removed, and my account there has been deleted. So just to avoid confusion, http://bugs.koha-community.org is the bugzilla that I will be using as elected release manager for the 3.4 release. I will of course be making use of the other .koha-comunity.org sites too. If anyone would like a shell account on the machine running download or bugs please let me know. I will be writing a tutorial on how you can now interact with the new bugzilla using email. And will post that on http://wiki.koha-community.org Thanks Chris On 21 May 2010 15:27, Chris Cormack <chris(a)bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote: > On 21 May 2010 14:50, mason(a)KohaAloha.com <mason(a)kohaaloha.com> wrote: >> >> On 2010-05-21, at 2:32 PM, Rick Welykochy wrote: >> >>> Chris Cormack wrote: >>> >>>> http://bugs.koha-community.org is live. With all the bugs imported from >>>> bugs.koha.org >>> >>> Thanks for the hard yards, Chris. >>> >>> I did a spot check and was able to find a bug I know about. >>> >>> Note that it appears that one can still create a new bug using the >>> old system. >> >> >>> Can you either disable access to it, or better still >>> make it read only? >> >> >> Nope, Thats a switch-over task that only the PTFS team can to. >> >> > Actually I still have my login, so I have disabled it (nothing is lost > its just in shutdown mode) > > Thanks for the reminder Rick > > Chris >

6 5

Mailing list migration End !
by Nahuel ANGELINETTI 21 May '10

21 May '10

Hi, As you know, I was migrating the mailing-lists this morning. The job is done, and know you are requested to use koha-devel(a)lists.koha-community.org and not anymore koha-devel(a)lists.koha.org. Please transmit the message to other users. bests, -- Nahuel ANGELINETTI

1 0

This is another test
by Nahuel ANGELINETTI 21 May '10

21 May '10

-- Nahuel ANGELINETTI

1 0