Bug 5632 - SIP improvements = Date formatting & debarrement management
Summary: SIP improvements = Date formatting & debarrement management
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: SIP2 (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4
Hardware: All All
: PATCH-Sent (DO NOT USE) enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Alex Arnaud
QA Contact: Bugs List
URL:
Keywords:
: 6042 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 5992
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-01-19 20:37 UTC by Paul Poulain
Modified: 2017-06-14 22:10 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

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


Attachments
Clean patch (2.95 KB, patch)
2011-03-28 12:34 UTC, Julian Maurice
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Another patch (4.93 KB, patch)
2011-03-30 21:43 UTC, Chris Cormack
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Paul Poulain 2011-01-19 20:37:09 UTC
* the dates should be printed in human-readable format, not in timestamp
* The patron debarment can now have a date (new feature of BibLibre circ improvements). We have to deal with this date on the SIP messages
Comment 1 Julian Maurice 2011-03-28 12:34:18 UTC
Created attachment 3464 [details] [review]
Clean patch

Patch was already sent to the mailing list but some merge problems remained.
So, this is a clean patch that format dates to be readable by human beings.
Also sent to mailing list.
Comment 2 Chris Cormack 2011-03-30 21:43:11 UTC
Created attachment 3554 [details] [review]
Another patch
Comment 3 Colin Campbell 2011-07-07 09:38:48 UTC
The date patch reformats some dates in the item information response which have their formats specified in the sip standard. Also while due date does not have a specified format some units assume all dates will be formatted the same (i.e. the sip format), I once did the same change for the same purpose only to find a sites self check machines stop functionning. On 3M machines date formatting can be configured on the self check unit itself.
Comment 4 Katrin Fischer 2011-08-29 15:33:29 UTC
Reading Colin's comment it sounds like Failed QA?
Do we need a different solution for the problem? 
And does this patch rely on the 'fines in days' feature?
Comment 5 Katrin Fischer 2011-08-29 15:37:58 UTC
*** Bug 6042 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Paul Poulain 2011-09-27 15:54:30 UTC
Alex, Assigning this bug to you, as you've written the 6042 patch. Please read comments from both patchs, investigate & argue. In the meantime, marking this patch "failed QA" as the 6042 one

(hint : maybe there's a difference between french 3M self-checkouts & english ones...)
Comment 7 Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2015-01-07 11:02:32 UTC
Hi there!

I went through the whole SIP2.0 manual from 3M and I got 15 instances of date-use using the SIP::timestamp
and 3 usages with no definition (optional) of the timeformat (see down).
All undefined usages are using the AH-field.

<SNIP>
2.00 Item Information Response
due date AH variable-length optional field. 

2.00 Renew Response 
due date AH variable-length required field

Checkout Response
due date AH variable-length required field

2.00 Hold Response 
2.00 expiration date BW 18-char, fixed-length optional field: YYYYMMDDZZZZHHMMSS
</SNAP>

I think one can strongly infer from the documentation that using the established timeformat (the SIP-format) is supposed to be used.
The SIP-device vendor anyway should format the date to be displayed per configuration.
Comment 8 Colin Campbell 2015-01-08 11:19:44 UTC
(In reply to Olli-Antti Kivilahti from comment #7)

> I think one can strongly infer from the documentation that using the
> established timeformat (the SIP-format) is supposed to be used.
> The SIP-device vendor anyway should format the date to be displayed per
> configuration.

Took a look at 3M's SIP 3.0 document and it specifies all these to use sip formatted dates.
Comment 9 Katrin Fischer 2015-01-18 18:26:22 UTC
Reading the last 2 comments it looks like we should not change the date formatting (assuming we are using sip formatted dates right now). Should we close this bug?