[Koha-bugs] [Bug 14544] Move the list related code to Koha::Virtualshelves

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

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14544

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

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

--- Comment #206 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy at rijksmuseum.nl> ---
QA Comment [Continuation]:

Thanks again for your hard work.

>> OPAC - Share a list - Enter email address - Return to your lists: This list
>> does not exist ??  op=view && category=1. Adjust the URL? 
> Fixed!
> Yes, the op is 'list', not 'view".
Fixed?? This is still a problem. Did you test it? (No blocker for such a large
patch, but ... Do you miss the shelf number?) 

> Fixed! But... This is a bad one.
> In opac-shelves.pl and shelves.pl, the join was only done on biblio.
> But itemcallnumber is in the items table.
> I had to add the biblio<=>biblioitems<=>items relationship to the Schema and a PK on virtualshelfcontents table
> (DBIx::Class::Storage::DBIHacks::_adjust_select_args_for_complex_prefetch(): Unable to perform complex limited prefetch off Virtualshelfcontent 
> without declared primary key).
But this is not completely solved.
View a private list in opac or staff: Bang.
DBIx::Class::ResultSet::next(): Operation requires a primary key to be declared
on 'Virtualshelfcontent' via set_primary_key
How did you test this? :) Apparently, you forgot to include this added PK in
your patches.
Fixed by a hack now: added set_primary_key in Virtualshelfcontent in the local
section.
Please adjust this by defining the PK on the table and regenerating the DBIx
file. 
Note also that I removed the belongs_to from Biblioitem to Item. This is not a
FK but a PK.

> Fixed!
> The "op" was "view" instead of "remove_biblios" on the submit button.
> Note that the individual links work (and intranet is ok).
I removed two items. One should not be removed, the other should. This works
now, but the message is not really clear. No blocker.

> The last patch reintroduces the read-only list feature/bug :)
> If we decide later to remove it, we would be able to do it reverting this patch!
Applying: Bug 14544: allow_delete_own == 0 could represent a read-only list
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging t/db_dependent/Virtualshelves.t
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in t/db_dependent/Virtualshelves.t
At this time I rather obsolete this additional patch. The wording was removed,
the behavior slightly changed.
No need to test this now. It has been just a reminder that changing behavior
may need more communication than one incidental IRC chat :)

Additional observation: The Author and [Date added] column in the shelf view on
staff are empty. (With and without the last four follow-up patches.) 

Passed QA

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