[Koha-bugs] [Bug 14370] Use Restrictions in Circulation

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

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14370

--- Comment #6 from Joy Nelson <joy at bywatersolutions.com> ---
Marcel-
You are right.  The difference between notforloan and restricted is vague.

I am all for using negative numbers in restricted as is in not for loan.

background:
The situation I ran into was for a consortium of academic libraries where each
library had a 'different reason' for something to be restricted.  They came
from another system and we struggled to find places to put all the item data
they required to be associated with an item.  They opted to simply create a few
additional 'restricted' values to contain the 'why' of restriction.  Finding
that the additional 'authorised_values' in the RESTRICTED list did not actually
restrict was an unpleasant surprise.  

If additional values are not allowed (i.e. not functional as '1') for
RESTRICTED, then it probably should not be a field that runs off an
'authorised_value' list.  Either hard code it like the 942$n suppress value or
allow additional values.  

joy


(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #5)
> The difference between notforloan and restricted is not very clear.
> Notforloan for instance could be/have been a subvalue of restricted;
> changing this now is not very obvious.
> 
> If we add values to the RESTRICTED list, I would opt for better
> descriptions. That restricted access now means no checkout is not very clear.
> 
> Making a difference between positive and negative values could be a
> compromise similar to notforloan<0 in current code.
> 
> I am only wondering now what the difference between various positive
> restricted values would be? "The code needs to be updated to allow.." But
> why exactly? If they would do exactly the same, why are you using multiple
> values? Could this be a property that actually belongs somewhere else?

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