[Koha-bugs] [Bug 10363] There is no package for authorised values.

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10363

M. de Rooy <m.de.rooy at rijksmuseum.nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|Signed Off                  |Failed QA

--- Comment #26 from M. de Rooy <m.de.rooy at rijksmuseum.nl> ---
[Preliminary] QA Comment:
First, compliments to Jonathan for his work in getting the code more organized.
This report has been pending for some time already in the queue. Several people
(including myself) may have been somewhat hesistant to give comments here. I
hope to trigger some discussion again in order to get this report further.

Somehow I am not completely happy with the proposed design: two objects for 1)
one authorized value and 2) several ones. It got me thinking: Do we really need
the singular object? Should we focus to category or collection?
And referring to an earlier comment, if we would have DBIC in-between, what
still is the additional value of what we have now?

Again referring to above (and as a general remark), it is confusing that we
already have three or more ways to define objects in the new Koha namespace.
You choose for Class:Accessor, but with a lot of additional handwork (blessing,
SUPER:: calls, etc.) Somehow the current design makes the impression that the
choice for OO here was not so obvious. See also earlier discussion on the new
constructor. Why should your object have a fetch method, etc.? (Similar
questions for e.g. a filter or all method.)

Glancing at the branches_limitation related code in class and script, I wonder
if your object(s) should expose that as is done currently. Just stimulating
your thoughts about improving design again :)

As a preliminary conclusion, I think this needs some more discussion and I
would not recommend to move these modules to the Koha folder in the current
form (design and DBIC argument-wise). But I would not oppose to move them to C4
(as a compromise) and use them as base for improvement from there. What do
others think?

Changing status to trigger some discussion. (Jonathan: Feel free to ask the dev
list for feedback.) Will try to attract the attention from Galen too..

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