Reported by Katrin: Example: - on shelf holds allowed - holds allowed 5 - holds on same record allowed 5 - FORCE item level holds On a record with only one item, you can only place a record level hold in OPAC now - which is against your circulation conditions. Another example: - record with 2 items - circulation rules as above, 1 hold allowed on the record - Item level holds: forced I can only place record level holds in OPAC and staff. At the moment, I am not able to place item level holds in any circumstances in my installation.
Created attachment 55744 [details] [review] Bug 17327 - Add unit test for regression
Created attachment 55745 [details] [review] Bug 17327 - Item level holds no longer enforced Reported by Katrin: Example: - on shelf holds allowed - holds allowed 5 - holds on same record allowed 5 - FORCE item level holds On a record with only one item, you can only place a record level hold in OPAC now - which is against your circulation conditions. Another example: - record with 2 items - circulation rules as above, 1 hold allowed on the record - Item level holds: forced I can only place record level holds in OPAC and staff. At the moment, I am not able to place item level holds in any circumstances in my installation. Test Plan: 1) Apply the unit test patch 2) prove t/db_dependent/Reserves/MultiplePerRecord.t should fail 3) Apply the second patch 4) prove t/db_dependent/Reserves/MultiplePerRecord.t should pass 5) Attempt to replicate one of the examples above, you should be unable to
Created attachment 55761 [details] [review] Bug 17327 - Add unit test for regression Signed-off-by: Benjamin Rokseth <benjamin.rokseth@kul.oslo.kommune.no>
Created attachment 55762 [details] [review] Bug 17327 - Item level holds no longer enforced Reported by Katrin: Example: - on shelf holds allowed - holds allowed 5 - holds on same record allowed 5 - FORCE item level holds On a record with only one item, you can only place a record level hold in OPAC now - which is against your circulation conditions. Another example: - record with 2 items - circulation rules as above, 1 hold allowed on the record - Item level holds: forced I can only place record level holds in OPAC and staff. At the moment, I am not able to place item level holds in any circumstances in my installation. Test Plan: 1) Apply the unit test patch 2) prove t/db_dependent/Reserves/MultiplePerRecord.t should fail 3) Apply the second patch 4) prove t/db_dependent/Reserves/MultiplePerRecord.t should pass 5) Attempt to replicate one of the examples above, you should be unable to Signed-off-by: Benjamin Rokseth <benjamin.rokseth@kul.oslo.kommune.no>
Tests ok. patron without holds -> both item and record level allowed patron with record level hold -> only record hold allowed patron with item level hold -> only item hold allowed How item/record level holds should be enforced by circulation rules is probably the scope of another bug, as this needs to be pushed to master quickly
Created attachment 55825 [details] [review] Bug 17327: Add unit test for regression Signed-off-by: Benjamin Rokseth <benjamin.rokseth@kul.oslo.kommune.no> Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Created attachment 55826 [details] [review] Bug 17327: Item level holds no longer enforced Reported by Katrin: Example: - on shelf holds allowed - holds allowed 5 - holds on same record allowed 5 - FORCE item level holds On a record with only one item, you can only place a record level hold in OPAC now - which is against your circulation conditions. Another example: - record with 2 items - circulation rules as above, 1 hold allowed on the record - Item level holds: forced I can only place record level holds in OPAC and staff. At the moment, I am not able to place item level holds in any circumstances in my installation. Test Plan: 1) Apply the unit test patch 2) prove t/db_dependent/Reserves/MultiplePerRecord.t should fail 3) Apply the second patch 4) prove t/db_dependent/Reserves/MultiplePerRecord.t should pass 5) Attempt to replicate one of the examples above, you should be unable to Signed-off-by: Benjamin Rokseth <benjamin.rokseth@kul.oslo.kommune.no> Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Created attachment 55827 [details] [review] Bug 17327: (QA followup) Remove Carp::Always which is not used This patch removes the need for Carp::Always in .../Reserves/MultiplePerRecord.t which is not actually used. It also removes 'undef' from Koha::Holds::forced_hold_level's last return, to comply with our QA rules. Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Pushed to master for 16.11, thanks for the followup Tomas!