Bug 7407 - HidePatronName not working anymore
Summary: HidePatronName not working anymore
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: System Administration (show other bugs)
Version: 3.6
Hardware: All All
: P3 critical
Assignee: Paul Poulain
QA Contact: Ian Walls
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-01-05 18:44 UTC by Nicole C. Engard
Modified: 2019-06-27 09:24 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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

Attachments
Proposed Patch (1.39 KB, patch)
2012-01-05 19:13 UTC, Ian Walls 		Details | Diff | Splinter Review
[SIGNED-OFF] Bug 7407: HidePatronName not working on 'on hold for' messages (1.46 KB, patch)
2012-01-05 19:15 UTC, Nicole C. Engard 		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 Nicole C. Engard 2012-01-05 18:44:13 UTC 
If you visit the detail page in the staff client it shows the patron name in the holdings table no matter what you choose for HidePatronName - it used to show the cardnumber instead of name if HidePatronName was set to 'Don't Show'
Comment 1 Nicole C. Engard 2012-01-05 19:04:39 UTC 
See here: http://screencast.com/t/dnidO2FbSefF

I'm on master.
Comment 2 Ian Walls 2012-01-05 19:13:10 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 3 Nicole C. Engard 2012-01-05 19:15:25 UTC 
Created attachment 7057 [details] [review]
[SIGNED-OFF] Bug 7407: HidePatronName not working on 'on hold for' messages

HidePatronName was not working on 'on hold for' messages, only 'checked out to'
messages.  This resulted in the patrons name showing if the item was on hold for
them.

T:T scope issue; needs to be within itemloo.  This patch does that.
Signed-off-by: Nicole C. Engard <nengard@bywatersolutions.com>
Comment 4 Paul Poulain 2012-01-17 14:36:13 UTC 
QA comment: one line patch, that is OK