[Koha-bugs] [Bug 21165] New: Notice Module governs fields available in letter.pl, but this often doesn't fit letter.code

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=21165

            Bug ID: 21165
           Summary: Notice Module governs fields available in letter.pl,
                    but this often doesn't fit letter.code
 Change sponsored?: ---
           Product: Koha
           Version: master
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P5 - low
         Component: Notices
          Assignee: koha-bugs at lists.koha-community.org
          Reporter: barton at bywatersolutions.com
        QA Contact: testopia at bugs.koha-community.org

When or updating a new notice in Home › Tools › Notices & Slips › Modify
notice, staff can click on fields in the field list, then click 'Insert' and
the field will appear at the cursor position in the message body. So, for
example, when editing the 'DUEDGST' notice, one can select
'items.biblionumber', then click insert, and the text

<<items.biblionumber>>

will appear in the body of the message.

The problem is that the available fields are selected based on letter.module.
In the case of 'DUEDGST', this will be circulation... and this does exactly the
wrong thing, because most of the fields available (items.*, biblio.*,
biblioitems.*, issue.s*) are *not* valid in DUEDGST -- only <<items.content>>
<<count>> and branches.* are valid in that notice.

Also, there are things missing that *could* be there -- for instance <<today>>
and <<count>>. Also, if we're going to use loops like

<items>
</items>

It should be possible to insert these from the list

As it stands, the field list is often misleading. If 'DUEDGST' *only* showed
<<items.content>>, it would easier for educators to point to the field list and
as a reference. As it stands, at best, they have to qualify its usage, and at
worst, the list is actively misleading.

The list should probably be generated based on 'letter.code' -- the available
codes are best read from the call to C4::Letters::GetPreparedLetter, especially
the 'table' and 'repeat' hashrefs.

Also, as we go forward using template toolkit based notices, it would be great
if snippits of template toolkit code were available as well.

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