[Koha-bugs] [Bug 19889] LocalHoldsPriority needs exclusions

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19889

--- Comment #23 from Agustín Moyano <agustinmoyano at theke.io> ---
(In reply to Christopher Brannon from comment #22)
> (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #21)
>  
> > So the result is similar, but ugly-ish. And involves an error prone
> > free-text field with pipe-separated values. So I don't see any advantage on
> > it. If we were to expose this condition on the API also, we would need to
> > add methods to extract the boolean with this kind of comparison, instead of
> > just reading what's on the category table.
> 
> What if it wasn't a free-text field?  What if we did something similar to
> what is being done in
> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22844?  Select the
> categories from a list rather than free typing?
> 
> I'd prefer to keep these settings together, but if you think it makes more
> sense to put exclusions in the patron categories, then that would be
> acceptable.  It works.  My biggest concern is trying to debug behavior. 
> It's one thing to have the items with their own exclusions in the record. 
> But trying to figure out why it excluding items in some cases and not others
> because of a patron category exclusion might be more challenging.  If there
> were some indicator when the exclusion is skipped somewhere, then I would
> have no problem with it.  If it is logged, then it would be easy to trace.
> 
> I'm just trying to make sure that our enhancement doesn't become a headache
> for those using it to try and understand system behavior.  Circulation rules
> alone are hard to follow when dealing with multiple branches.

Hi Christopher, great idea about logging when local hold is excluded.

I'll get right into it.

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