[Koha-bugs] [Bug 18201] Export data -Fix "Remove non-local items" option and add " Removes non-local records" option for existing functionality

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18201

Nick Clemens <nick at bywatersolutions.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|Failed QA                   |In Discussion

--- Comment #5 from Nick Clemens <nick at bywatersolutions.com> ---
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #4)
> Not sure if we should classify this as a bug or an enhancement.
I assigned 'bug' because the current options don't do what people expect, it is
essentially broken


> if I read "Remove records", I suppose that will scare
> some people. Would it be better to talk about excluding records or items
> from an export ?
'Exclude' is okay by me, but remove is the current language so I thought it
should be preserved 

> Another confusing thing is that we now have a library selection in the top
> of the form and an option "Remove .. not owned by library" in the bottom. It
> seems contradictory, or needs further explanation on the form.
I take your point, but that is actually the current state, the checkbox just
appears to have a different function, it actually limits to records owned by
the library you are signed in at. Would you prefer to remove this option?

The only use case I see is that you can select one library at the top - check
the box at the bottom and now get only records owned by both branches. Select
all but your own branch at the top, check the box, and then you have a list of
items you own that are not unique, may be useful in cosortia where unique items
must be preserved but can be achieved via reports


> 
> What actually is a record not owned by a library? It makes sense for items,
> but how does it relate to biblios ?
'Owned by' in this context means 'hosts an item owned by' - A record is owned
by a library if they own an item on that record

> Changing status to reflect need for feedback.
> All by all, I think we need some more thought here and I would suggest to
> classify it as an enhancement.
My goal was to preserve current functionality but provide expected
functionality, I can accept if it is viewed as an enhancement but need some
direction on what should be changed

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