Sending orders by email
I've ported my order-by-email patch (first mentioned in Bug 5260) to 3.4.3. I attach two diffs, one for the CGI scripts and another for the templates, in a format hopefully acceptable to GIT people. Katrin Fischer suggested using the message queue for sending emails to booksellers, but, as I understand, C4::Letters::EnqueueLetter can send only to borrowers. I've changed the tab wording from ```Mail'' to ``Email'' as suggested by Katrin Fischer. Btw.: I'm also (with some help by Dan McMahill) importing Koha (currently 3.4.3) into the NetBSD Package Collection. Once this gets sorted out, you can just cd ${PKGSRCDIR}/databases/koha && make install (or pkg_add koha if someone has built the binaries for you) and you get Koha and all its dependencies installed on any system supported by pkgsrc (which is, in fact, nearly everything POSIX compatible, including most BSDs, SunOS, AIX, Darwin/OSX and even Linux).
Sorry, there was an error in the template patch (``Send Email'' appearing for closed baskets, not open). I hope I got it right this time.
Edgar Fuß schreef op wo 27-07-2011 om 16:11 [+0200]:
Katrin Fischer suggested using the message queue for sending emails to booksellers, but, as I understand, C4::Letters::EnqueueLetter can send only to borrowers.
While that's true, it would be worth extending the message queue stuff to allow it to happen. This lets us have central control of messages. For example, the packages have 'koha-(dis|en)able-email' so you can turn it on and off globally. Also, it's best sending patches using the git tools. That way, anyone can really easily apply them just from the bug, and they keep history and attribution correctly. Robin.
Also, it's best sending patches using the git tools. I tried to understand the problem, but I didn't. I asked a GIT aware colleague to understand the problem, but he didn't either. I asked here to convert what I sent into what I should have sent (so I could understand the difference), but to no avail.
So, after finishing a proposed solution to Bug 6390, I went into the trouble of pulling the Koha GIT repository, applied my patch and looked what ``git diff'' would output. I can't spot any substantial difference from the original patch. Nevertheless, I re-sent my patches for both 5260 and 6390 in GIT format to hopefully make people happy.
That way, anyone can really easily apply them just from the bug, I just simply don't understand. Is it really that people are able to issue a git apply mailorder.git but are unable to issue a patch -p0 <mailorder.patch ? I can't believe that.
and they keep history and attribution correctly I don't see how this can be done more easily by git apply then by patch.
On 1 August 2011 09:40, Edgar Fuß <ef@math.uni-bonn.de> wrote:
Also, it's best sending patches using the git tools. I tried to understand the problem, but I didn't. I asked a GIT aware colleague to understand the problem, but he didn't either. I asked here to convert what I sent into what I should have sent (so I could understand the difference), but to no avail.
So, after finishing a proposed solution to Bug 6390, I went into the trouble of pulling the Koha GIT repository, applied my patch and looked what ``git diff'' would output. I can't spot any substantial difference from the original patch. Nevertheless, I re-sent my patches for both 5260 and 6390 in GIT format to hopefully make people happy.
That way, anyone can really easily apply them just from the bug, I just simply don't understand. Is it really that people are able to issue a git apply mailorder.git but are unable to issue a patch -p0 <mailorder.patch ? I can't believe that.
and they keep history and attribution correctly I don't see how this can be done more easily by git apply then by patch.
If you use git format-patch and then git send-email to send it to the koha-patches mailing list. And also attach that patch to the bug (that's not as nessecary the mailing list is the main place). The patches can then be applied by git am -iu3, keeping author and committer history intact. This is the way the other 147 developers do it, and it seems to work well for them. Chris
it would be worth extending the message queue stuff to allow it to happen I don't see how that could be done. It looks like its whole concept is centred about sending messages to patrons (``borrowers'').
Edgar Fuß schreef op di 02-08-2011 om 16:47 [+0200]:
it would be worth extending the message queue stuff to allow it to happen I don't see how that could be done. It looks like its whole concept is centred about sending messages to patrons (``borrowers'').
Without having looking at the code, I'd have an optional email address field in the table, and that's used instead of the borrower email address if it's supplied. Robin.
participants (3)
-
Chris Cormack -
Edgar Fuß -
Robin Sheat