Bug 29177 - Remove TODO in acqui/finishreceive.pl
Summary: Remove TODO in acqui/finishreceive.pl
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low trivial
Assignee: Marcel de Rooy
QA Contact: Martin Renvoize (ashimema)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 29202
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2021-10-05 14:05 UTC by Marcel de Rooy
Modified: 2022-06-06 20:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: Trivial patch
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
21.11.00
Circulation function:

Attachments
Bug 29177: Remove TODO in acqui/finishreceive (1.45 KB, patch)
2021-10-05 14:07 UTC, Marcel de Rooy 		Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 29177: Remove TODO in acqui/finishreceive (1.48 KB, patch)
2021-10-11 09:28 UTC, Martin Renvoize (ashimema) 		Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Show Obsolete (1) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcel de Rooy 2021-10-05 14:05:42 UTC 
Trivial edit
Comment 1 Marcel de Rooy 2021-10-05 14:07:42 UTC 
Created attachment 125738 [details] [review]
Bug 29177: Remove TODO in acqui/finishreceive

Replacing a multiple object->column(value) by ->update.
Comment 2 Marcel de Rooy 2021-10-05 14:08:19 UTC 
Martin, did you have this in mind ?
Comment 3 Marcel de Rooy 2021-10-05 14:08:40 UTC 
So trivial that I am signing off.
Comment 4 Katrin Fischer 2021-10-10 12:58:53 UTC 
Leaving for Martin.
Comment 5 Martin Renvoize (ashimema) 2021-10-11 09:28:25 UTC 
Created attachment 126035 [details] [review]
Bug 29177: Remove TODO in acqui/finishreceive

Replacing a multiple object->column(value) by ->update.

Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Comment 6 Martin Renvoize (ashimema) 2021-10-11 09:30:22 UTC 
A good improvement, all works as expected.

It did lead me to ask the question "Should the replacementprice field have the same date trigger treatment as itemlost, damaged and withdrawn fields?"

I think the answer is "yes", but I think that falls outside of the scope of this one, so I'm opening another bug and will link it here.
Comment 7 Martin Renvoize (ashimema) 2021-10-11 09:34:26 UTC 
See bug 29202
Comment 8 Jonathan Druart 2021-10-12 09:19:23 UTC 
Pushed to master for 21.11, thanks to everybody involved!