On 14 December 2015 6:14:22 am NZDT, Katrin Fischer <Katrin.Fischer.83@web.de> wrote:
I am in favour or removing the item-level_itype system preference and for centralizing all itemtype related code. But I think we have still have a need/use for the biblio level itemtype apart from it setting the default for the items level.
I know there was some work done to use it for holds related code. And also patches like document delivery (bug 14610) depend on it to allow requests for records without items.
Katrin
I agree, especially as more and more libraries have records with no items. (Think a catalogue for a website with the URL in 856u for marc21) Or all the project Gutenberg records etc. The item level item type is there for a reason. I'm all for simplifying the code but just want to make sure people understand it and don't kill features by accident. http://blog.bigballofwax.co.nz/2012/07/31/yes-you-should-rewrite-it-no-not-l... Chris
Am 12.12.2015 um 14:46 schrieb Barton Chittenden:
The rfc made sense to me; I think that it is the right approach. Here are a few things to consider:
1/ There are a *lot* of reports written that use items.itype. I don't like the fact that this isn't called items.itemtype, but unless we have a seamless and foolproof transition, this will cause massive amounts of pain. This includes the sql report library on the wiki.
2/ I think that there should be a method of locking the default itemtype to NULL so that it is not accidentally set by libraries who currently use item level itemtypes... Having that get set accidentally would be a pain to trouble-shoot.
3/ There are libraries who use item level itemtypes who currently have data in the biblioitems.itemtype... Just due to the fact that we haven't previously made it impossible, I'm sure that it's happened... So we need to delete those if they're there.
These are all the reasonable caveats that I can think of. I had a couple of unreasonable ones as well... see the obligatory https://xkcd.com/1172/
On Dec 11, 2015 7:05 AM, "Jonathan Druart" <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org <mailto:jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org>> wrote:
Hi devs,
Friday is a good day for this kind of questions, fasten your seat belt for a time travel.
As many of you know, the item type is not correctly managed all around the different Koha modules. Sometimes it's, sometimes it's not. The main issue is that we deal with it at too many places and the code is not clean/centralised at all.
So I have searched for previous discussions on this subject and I have found this "Abandoned RFC" on the wiki :
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Mandate_item-level_circulation_rules_RFC
filled from this koha-devel thread
http://lists.koha-community.org/pipermail/koha-devel/2008-October/031144.htm...
The questions are: 1/ Is this still valid? 2/ Is there something missing in the different steps described? 3/ Does someone have some other suggestions to do?
I would be happy to provide this change but first I would like to
get
confirmation about it and get people involved in signoffing/QAing
the
possible patch set.
Cheers, Jonathan _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.