Bug 7758 - Koha allowing LOST items to check out without alert
Summary: Koha allowing LOST items to check out without alert
Status: CLOSED MOVED
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Circulation (show other bugs)
Version: 3.6
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Kyle M Hall
QA Contact: Ian Walls
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-03-20 13:25 UTC by Kyle M Hall
Modified: 2014-11-29 09:06 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

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


Attachments
Bug 7758 - Koha allowing LOST items to check out without alert (2.02 KB, patch)
2012-04-05 15:16 UTC, Kyle M Hall
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 7758 - Koha allowing LOST items to check out without alert (2.29 KB, patch)
2012-04-05 16:43 UTC, Liz Rea
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 7758 - Followup - Make alert non-blocking (3.34 KB, patch)
2012-04-10 17:05 UTC, Kyle M Hall
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 7758 - Followup - Make alert non-blocking (3.54 KB, patch)
2012-04-10 19:45 UTC, Liz Rea
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 7758 - Followup - Add syspref allow a choice of blocking, non-blocking, or do nothing when issuing lost items. (6.30 KB, patch)
2012-04-11 14:06 UTC, Kyle M Hall
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 7758 - Followup - Add syspref allow a choice of blocking, non-blocking, or do nothing when issuing lost items. (6.41 KB, patch)
2012-05-16 20:34 UTC, Liz Rea
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Kyle M Hall 2012-03-20 13:25:43 UTC
Currently, if an item marked as lost is missed at checkin, the system does not alert the librarian that the item was lost when issuing the item to a patron. We should add an alert with an ok/cancel box similar to the one for checking out items that are already issued to another patron.
Comment 1 Kyle M Hall 2012-04-05 15:16:55 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Liz Rea 2012-04-05 16:42:09 UTC
patch looks good - one caveat, I suspect someone will propose that this should be a syspref.
Comment 3 Liz Rea 2012-04-05 16:43:42 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 4 Owen Leonard 2012-04-05 16:47:02 UTC
In check-in we show a non-blocking message that something was lost. I'm curious why we should block check-out.
Comment 5 Kyle M Hall 2012-04-05 16:51:27 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)

If the consensus is that this should be non-blocking, I can modify the patch.

> In check-in we show a non-blocking message that something was lost. I'm
> curious why we should block check-out.
Comment 6 Chris Cormack 2012-04-05 20:49:13 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> patch looks good - one caveat, I suspect someone will propose that this
> should be a syspref.

Let me be that guy, non blocking and a syspref that can turn the alert off altogether if wanted.
Comment 7 Paul Poulain 2012-04-06 16:10:11 UTC
QA comment: tiny patch, nothing to say from QA point of view

Pushing this patch before string-freeze because it contains a string !
Comment 8 Kyle M Hall 2012-04-10 17:05:47 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 9 Liz Rea 2012-04-10 19:45:17 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 10 Kyle M Hall 2012-04-10 19:56:24 UTC
Honestly, I prefer the original as well. Let's set this to in discussion for now. Maybe we can get some more people to weigh in on this.
Comment 11 Chris Cormack 2012-04-10 20:05:45 UTC
If you did a syspref you could have all 3 ; no alert, non blocking alert, blocking alert. Seems easiest to me.
Comment 12 Kyle M Hall 2012-04-10 20:14:49 UTC
That sounds like a good plan, I'll write another followup to implement that.

(In reply to comment #11)
> If you did a syspref you could have all 3 ; no alert, non blocking alert,
> blocking alert. Seems easiest to me.
Comment 13 Kyle M Hall 2012-04-11 14:06:27 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 14 Jared Camins-Esakov 2012-05-09 19:57:34 UTC
The patch that was included in master will be included in the Koha 3.6.5 release.
Comment 15 Elliott Davis 2012-05-10 00:09:14 UTC
This follow up patch works for all 3 scenarios.

On a side note there is a conflict in the updatedatabase file, not really sure if that is noteworthy since it happens often.
Comment 16 Liz Rea 2012-05-16 20:34:43 UTC
Created attachment 9625 [details] [review]
Bug 7758 - Followup - Add syspref allow a choice of blocking, non-blocking, or do nothing when issuing lost items.

Signed-off-by: Liz Rea <wizzyrea@gmail.com>
Works as advertised.
Comment 17 Paul Poulain 2012-05-28 12:29:07 UTC
QA comment:
 * shouldn't this patch be in another bug ? I've pushed something for 7758 already, and can't push the follow-up/new patch in this branch without pain. Plus it's not really a follow-up, it's a 3.10 enhancement.
 * Adding an "alert" hash to CanBookBeIssued seems a good idea to me, must be advertised (i'll take care of this in my RM monthly newsletter when I'll push this patch)

No other comment from QA point of view.
Please create another bug, attach this patch to it (directly "signed-off", and i'll take care of pushing it
Comment 18 Kyle M Hall 2012-05-30 16:57:42 UTC
Done, bug 8167.

Kyle

(In reply to comment #17)
> QA comment:
>  * shouldn't this patch be in another bug ? I've pushed something for 7758
> already, and can't push the follow-up/new patch in this branch without pain.
> Plus it's not really a follow-up, it's a 3.10 enhancement.
>  * Adding an "alert" hash to CanBookBeIssued seems a good idea to me, must
> be advertised (i'll take care of this in my RM monthly newsletter when I'll
> push this patch)
> 
> No other comment from QA point of view.
> Please create another bug, attach this patch to it (directly "signed-off",
> and i'll take care of pushing it