Created attachment 27121 [details] [review] Allow multiple reserves for the same patron This requires rather large changes to C4/Reserves.pm, because it didn't use the reserve_id to distinguish the reserves. -Remove all vestiges of reserveconstraints -table from the code. -Make Reserves use ID numbers as much as possible, instead of matching with patron number, bibnum, and date. -Allow the same patron reserve the same item multiple times, but only via staff client. -Adds syspref AllowMultipleHolds ---- I wrote this patch a while ago, and seeing all the other improvements in the area (for example bug 12079 and bug 11947), I decided to put this up here, perhaps it'll be of some use.
Created attachment 34522 [details] [review] Bug 12085 - Allow staff to place multiple reserves for the same patron This requires rather large changes to C4/Reserves.pm, because it didn't use the reserve_id to distinguish the reserves. -Remove all vestiges of reserveconstraints -table from the code. -Make Reserves use ID numbers as much as possible, instead of matching with patron number, bibnum, and date. -Allow the same patron reserve the same item multiple times, but only via staff client.
Created attachment 34523 [details] [review] Bug 12085 - Allow staff to place multiple reserves for the same patron. Fix wrong branch from hold-transfer-slip.pl 1. Place lots of reservations for one borrower to be picked up from multiple branches. 2. Start checking the books in and catching the resevations. 3. Observe that the hold-transfer-slip is always for the first unsatisfied hold for the biblionumber, regardless of which hold is received. This only appears when checking-in multiple same biblios. This patch fixes that.
Rebased for 3.16.4. Will rebase to master some day with unit tests. Feel free to rip this code to whatever evil purposes. As long as they are sufficiently evil to get this feature to master :)
(In reply to Olli-Antti Kivilahti from comment #3) > Rebased for 3.16.4. > Will rebase to master some day with unit tests. > > Feel free to rip this code to whatever evil purposes. > As long as they are sufficiently evil to get this feature to master :) It will certainly have my attention if you rebase it on master :) And the opac side (there is already a report in FQA or DNA for that..) ?