Bug 8669

Summary: De-activated Funds should not be selectable
Product: Koha Reporter: Albert Oller <ago>
Component: AcquisitionsAssignee: Bugs List <koha-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: enhancement    
Priority: P5 - low CC: chris, melia
Version: 3.8   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Change sponsored?: --- Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact: Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:

Description Albert Oller 2012-08-22 21:06:50 UTC
Funds that are de-activated should not be selectable in the dropdown list.  With comment #2 2) in bug 7303 (http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7303), there should be a way to prevent re-used budgets.
Comment 1 Melia Meggs 2012-08-22 22:51:10 UTC
I just want to add a little more info to this bug report.  One of our libraries ran into the following problem.

When you go through acquisitions, and after you have staged records, there is a choice to import staged records.  Going through this process, you have to choose the budget and then later choose the fund from a dropdown menu.  The dropdown menu brings up last year's budget at the top and this year's budget at the bottom.  This particular library names the budgets/funds exactly the same thing every year, so she was choosing last year's deactivated budget from the top of the list when she actually meant to choose this year's budget.

After she had completed the import, she checked the fund for this year's budget, found nothing ordered today, and thought that Koha was losing the data she had just entered when in fact it was just under last year's budget/fund with the same name.

As Albert mentioned, this was discussed on bug 7303, and it looks like the conclusion was that it's ok to reuse budget and fund names from year to year.  But I'm wondering if Koha should allow you to choose a deactivated budget/fund from the dropdown menu.  If only the active budgets were shown, then I don't think this librarian would have gotten these budgets and funds confused, even with the identical names.  Is this a bug?
Comment 2 Melia Meggs 2012-08-23 17:19:23 UTC
May be a dup of bug 8659?
Comment 3 Chris Cormack 2012-08-23 22:46:42 UTC
Yes I agree it is a duplicate, marking it as such.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 8659 ***