Bug 6366 - The serial claims dropdown shows suppliers that don't have late issues.
Summary: The serial claims dropdown shows suppliers that don't have late issues.
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Serials (show other bugs)
Version: rel_3_2
Hardware: All All
: PATCH-Sent (DO NOT USE) normal (vote)
Assignee: Frédérick Capovilla
QA Contact: Bugs List
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-05-18 17:34 UTC by Frédérick Capovilla
Modified: 2012-10-26 00:40 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Attachments
Corrects GetSuppliersWithLateIssues (1.16 KB, patch)
2011-05-18 17:34 UTC, Frédérick Capovilla
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Frédérick Capovilla 2011-05-18 17:34:07 UTC
Created attachment 4170 [details] [review]
Corrects GetSuppliersWithLateIssues

On the page /serials/claims.pl :
The "View:" selectbox contains suppliers that don't have late serials. Selecting them leaves the page blank.

Cause : 
The SQL query in the subroutine GetSuppliersWithLateIssues returns every supplier with an order that has a "planneddate" before "now()" without checking if the order was already received.

Patch attached.
Comment 1 Colin Campbell 2011-05-20 10:50:12 UTC
Signed off - patch applies to 3.2 behaviour as in 3.4
Comment 2 Paul Poulain 2011-08-11 08:16:13 UTC
QA comment

Patch does not apply. It appears that the problem has already been fixed by 63a8c5bc9df7585ac4e5796e9f1a62f25f52ebb0 from hdl, 2010-11-01
MT3801 followup : Cannot claim for issues
signed-off by Colin

I've also checked 3.4.3, it's also already applied.
I've checked 3.4.2 and 3.4.1, and it's the same thing = already applied.

Colin / Frédérick = could you confirm please and mark "RESOLVED FIXED", or give me directions.

For now, marking "does not apply"
Comment 3 Colin Campbell 2011-08-11 09:47:28 UTC
Patch is for 3.2.x only see my earlier comment it applies a fix similar to that already in the 3.4 release
Comment 4 Paul Poulain 2011-08-11 09:57:13 UTC
OK, I misunderstood your comment (my average english...):
patch applies to 3.2 behaviour as in 3.4
=> undestood
patch applies to 3.2 behaviour, as in 3.4 (which means nothing probably)
instead of
patch applies to 3.2, behaviour as in 3.4 (which I failed to understand)

3.2 is now unsupported, so marking "RESO WONTFIX"