[Koha-bugs] [Bug 28078] Add option to ignore hold counts when checking CanItemBeReserved

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28078

Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala at helsinki.fi> changed:

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

--- Comment #5 from Joonas Kylmälä <joonas.kylmala at helsinki.fi> ---
(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #4)
> (In reply to Joonas Kylmälä from comment #3)
> > Let me come back to this later but I'm pretty sure we cannot do this because
> > (at least how the parameter is used in the bug 28013) it wouldn't follow
> > circulation rules. We have libraries intentionally defining the amounts of
> > holds a patron in a specific patron category and in a specific library can
> > do to a specific item type. See also Bug 26659.
> 
> I see what you are saying, the way I understand it is this:
> In CanBookBeRenewed we call CanItemBeReserved to see if the item could fill
> the reserve
> 
> Those are two different questions:
> 
> CanItemBeReserved answers the question: "Can the patron place a hold on this
> item?"
> 
> What we are asking in CanBookBeRenewed is: "Can this item fill any hold for
> this patron?"
> 
> In the first question the number of holds the patron currently has should be
> taken into account as the end result would be adding one more
> 
> In the second question the number of holds don't matter, because we will not
> add any holds, we just want to know if we can fill the hold
> 
> 
> The other solution is two subroutines:
> CanItemBeReserved
> CanItemFillHold
> 
> Note: We do have Koha::Holds->get_items_that_can_fill, however, that leaves
> out checks on transfer limits and counts of holds

Interesting. I see now you added the condition

> && (!$params->{ignore_hold_counts} || $allowedreserves == 0 )

so it still keeps follows the circulation rules also when allowedreserves rules
is 0. Maybe doing the check on also how many hold requests the patron has to
the biblio or item is not relevant here as you said.

However, I think this patch should also skip the itemAlreadyOnHold return value
for this to work on item-level holds as well, could you please re-do the patch?

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