Description
Marc Véron
2014-11-15 15:39:54 UTC
Created attachment 33593 [details] [review] Bug 13261 - Better check in message for patrons with indefinite restricition This patch adds a better check in message for patrons with indefinite restriction. To test: Check out an item to a patron. Add a manual restriction without expiry date to that patron. Check in the item. Without patch, the checkin message reads: Reminder: Patron was earlier restricted until 9999-12-31 Apply patch and repeat steps above. The message should now read: Reminder: Patron has a restriction (no expiry date) Created attachment 33594 [details] [review] Bug 13261 - Better check in message for patrons with indefinite restricition This patch adds a better check in message for patrons with indefinite restriction. To test: Check out an item to a patron. Add a manual restriction without expiry date to that patron. Check in the item. Without patch, the checkin message reads: Reminder: Patron was earlier restricted until 9999-12-31 Apply patch and repeat steps above. The message should now read: Reminder: Patron has a restriction (no expiry date) Signed-off-by: Frederic Demians <f.demians@tamil.fr> Thanks Marc for catching this case. I was thinking like you that the wording sounded strange while playing with bug 13242. I would prefer something like "Patron has an indefinite restriction" Or "Patron is restricted indefinitely." I'm glad to see this worked on--this was a complaint at my library after our recent upgrade. (In reply to Owen Leonard from comment #3) > I would prefer something like "Patron has an indefinite restriction" Or > "Patron is restricted indefinitely." I'm glad to see this worked on--this > was a complaint at my library after our recent upgrade. Maybe 'permanently'. > Maybe 'permanently'.
'Permanently' implies that the restriction can't be removed. 'Indefinitely' implies that the ending date is simply not known.
Created attachment 33595 [details] [review] [Follow-up] Bug 13261 - Better wording for check in message Changed wording at two places following Owen's suggestion. New: "Patron has an indefinite restriction" Reset to "Needs Signoff" for second patch. Tested on Sandbox 1 (Unimarc) When checking in after adding a restriction without expiry date, ends with a gateway time out (error 504). Check out and check in without restriction work, check in with restriction and expiry date works too. Created attachment 33619 [details] [review] Bug 13261 - Better check in message for patrons with indefinite restricition This patch adds a better check in message for patrons with indefinite restriction. To test: Check out an item to a patron. Add a manual restriction without expiry date to that patron. Check in the item. Without patch, the checkin message reads: Reminder: Patron was earlier restricted until 9999-12-31 Apply patch and repeat steps above. The message should now read: Reminder: Patron has a restriction (no expiry date) NOTE: Changed wording at two places following Owen's suggestion. New: "Patron has an indefinite restriction" Signed-off-by: Frederic Demians <f.demians@tamil.fr> Thanks Marc for catching this case. I was thinking like you that the wording sounded strange while playing with bug 13242. Merge the original patch and the followup, containing a better wording, thanks to Owen comment. Marc, could you add a test to cover the change to AddReturn? Created attachment 33630 [details] [review] [PASSED QA] Bug 13261 - Better check in message for patrons with indefinite restricition This patch adds a better check in message for patrons with indefinite restriction. To test: Check out an item to a patron. Add a manual restriction without expiry date to that patron. Check in the item. Without patch, the checkin message reads: Reminder: Patron was earlier restricted until 9999-12-31 Apply patch and repeat steps above. The message should now read: Reminder: Patron has a restriction (no expiry date) NOTE: Changed wording at two places following Owen's suggestion. New: "Patron has an indefinite restriction" Signed-off-by: Frederic Demians <f.demians@tamil.fr> Thanks Marc for catching this case. I was thinking like you that the wording sounded strange while playing with bug 13242. Merge the original patch and the followup, containing a better wording, thanks to Owen comment. Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <Katrin.Fischer.83@web.de> Works as described, no problems found. Passes tests and QA script. Patch pushed to master. Thanks Marc! Created attachment 33944 [details] [review] Bug 13261: Remove warning if no parameter given Without any parameter, dt_from_string should not raise a warning message. Test plan: Verify that the test file t/DateUtils.t displays a warning: Use of uninitialized value $date_string in pattern match (m//) at Koha/DateUtils.pm line 58 if the change in dt_from_string is not applied (manually edit the file). Comment on attachment 33944 [details] [review] Bug 13261: Remove warning if no parameter given wrong bug report. Thanks for the patch Marc! Just stumbled upon this issue having barred some of our patrons :) |