I promise to let you name one of the variables of the patches if you give me some feedbacks :)
2015-12-17 16:41 GMT+00:00 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org>: > Thanks all for your answers. > > I have played a bit with the code, and I would propose the following: > > Update DB migration: > 1/ add column biblio.biblio_type > 2/ update biblio.biblio_type with biblioitems.itemtype > 3/ rename items.itype with items.item_type > 4/ set items.item_type = biblio.biblio_type if items.item_type is not > defined (or if item_level_itypes is not set?) > 5/ rename deleteditems.itype with items.item_type, and don't update it > (right?) > 6/ drop column biblioitems.itemtype > 7/ rename course_items.itype with course_items.item_type (to be consistent) > > Then we will have to replace the notices ^items.itype^items.item_type^ > and ^biblioitems.itemtype^biblio.biblio_type^ should solve the > problem. > > Looking at the code, I have found some places where I am not sure how > to fix the display: > 1/ For instance on the detail page of a biblio, or when a user place a > hold, the item type is display either *on top* of the items list, or > *in* a specific column of the table. > Which makes sense. If we remove the pref, we have 3 choices: > a. always display the item type in the table > b. display the item type on top only if all item types are identical > at the biblio type (will require some additional loops) > c. display both and set a css class: the library will be able to > hide the one it wants > d. the answer d > > 2/ The change will require a complete reindexation of zebra: the index > will be renamed (itype => item_type, mc-itype => mc-item_type, > itemtype => biblio_type, mc-itemtype => mc-biblio_type). > Is it acceptable? > > I think I can produce a patch in 2 days of work (which is nothing > compared to the number of days Koha developpers have lost to > understand how this code works...), but it will require a lot of deep > testing. > It will really hard to provide tests for this change since it impacts > a lot of file, but I will write some for the most common subroutines. > > I would like some people engaged in the signoff process, not to let > the patches in the signoff queue too long. > > Cheers, > Jonathan > > 2015-12-11 12:04 GMT+00:00 Jonathan Druart > <jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org>: >> Hi devs, >> >> Friday is a good day for this kind of questions, fasten your seat belt >> for a time travel. >> >> As many of you know, the item type is not correctly managed all around >> the different Koha modules. Sometimes it's, sometimes it's not. >> The main issue is that we deal with it at too many places and the code >> is not clean/centralised at all. >> >> So I have searched for previous discussions on this subject and I have >> found this "Abandoned RFC" on the wiki : >> http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Mandate_item-level_circulation_rules_RFC >> filled from this koha-devel thread >> http://lists.koha-community.org/pipermail/koha-devel/2008-October/031144.html >> >> The questions are: >> 1/ Is this still valid? >> 2/ Is there something missing in the different steps described? >> 3/ Does someone have some other suggestions to do? >> >> I would be happy to provide this change but first I would like to get >> confirmation about it and get people involved in signoffing/QAing the >> possible patch set. >> >> Cheers, >> Jonathan _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
