The commit that removed them was this one: http://git.koha-community.org/gitweb/?p=koha.git;a=commitdiff;h=01e4b668caa41faaaad01b18a2e30cb7bebf8252 It has no associated bug or RM signoff, provides no migration path away from using those fields, and was wrong in the description (they're not redundant: the removed fields are associated with the subscription history table, not the subscription one.) It's debatable whether we should have that many note fields, but for now we will, until something that removes them properly can be implemented.
Created attachment 5637 [details] [review] Bug 6938 - replace two subscription fields that were incorrectly removed The "Note for OPAC" and "Note for staff" fields in subscriptions were removed, but they are their own fields in the database and display in other places too. This patch puts them back so that they can once again be edited.
Signed off fields only appear in edit when manual history is selected. data entered is correctly saved and displayed
Created attachment 5860 [details] [review] Bug 6938 - replace two subscription fields that were incorrectly removed The "Note for OPAC" and "Note for staff" fields in subscriptions were removed, but they are their own fields in the database and display in other places too. This patch puts them back so that they can once again be edited. Signed-off-by: Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com>
QA comment * patch conflicted with owen recent change on display, i've fixed the conflict * this patch also added some minor but not announced reindenting. * do what it announced, small template changes passed QA For RM: this contains some strings so conflicts with string freeze but as it fixes a big regression, I vote for immediate inclusion (& increase the severity of the bug)
Template-only change to reintroduce display of a few lost fields. Easy to read, marking as Passed QA. Yes, this does introduce new strings, and this doesn't seem to be a critical problem. RM, your call as to whether to integrate this now, or wait for 3.6.1.
Will hold over for 3.6.1
Actually, if any translators want to say, go ahead and push, im happy to do that also.
I think bringing back missing information is important. +1 for pushing this.
Pushed, please test
All notes (staff note, opac note, staff history note, opac history note) correctly show on the summary tab.