[Koha-bugs] [Bug 22018] Add an option to 'AllowEarlyRenewal' to enable users to renew before the autorenew date

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22018

Andrew Isherwood <andrew.isherwood at ptfs-europe.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrew.isherwood at ptfs-europ
                   |                            |e.com

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Isherwood <andrew.isherwood at ptfs-europe.com> ---
I've been getting my head around the requirement, history and existing code
here. My understanding might be flawed, so please don't judge me.

We have a syspref called RenewalPeriodBase which makes it possible to specify,
when an item is renewed, whether the new due date should be based on either the
current date or the item's original due date.

In Bug 7413, Katrin pointed out that the second option could be abused to
"game" the system to maximise the loan period. Thus, norenewalbefore was born
as a mitigation against this by preventing patrons renewing an item more than a
specified time period before the item's due date.

However, this bug is highlighting that norenewalbefore prevents patrons from
pre-emptively renewing an item before going away for a period of time, in order
to avoid an autorenewal which would occur while they're away being blocked by a
hold being placed on the item.

I've had several attempts at sketching out an arrangement of loan periods,
autorenewal dates, patron being away dates and norenewalbefore settings that
results in the patron getting more than maybe a day's fine, but I've failed to
find one. I've tried both long and short loan periods, but cannot find a
situation where it is problematic. Could someone describe a scenario where a
patron being able to pre-emptively renew an item outside a norenewalbefore
period would help them prevent fines?

Katrin - I'm not sure what you're getting at with splitting norenewalbefore,
could you elaborate on how it will help?

Also, isn't any arrangement which allows a user to renew an item pre-emptively
going to return us to the original situation of allowing them to "game" the
system?

Sorry, I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding, so please bear with me.

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