Bug 14444

Summary: A biblio's 'modification history' view confusingly includes info from a unrelated item
Product: Koha Reporter: Mason James <mtj>
Component: ToolsAssignee: Mason James <mtj>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Testopia <testopia>
Severity: minor    
Priority: P5 - low CC: arouss1980, jonathan.druart, severine.queune
Version: Main   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
See Also: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10352
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10680
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=12235
GIT URL: Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: --- Documentation contact:
Documentation submission: Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
Circulation function:
Attachments: pic-1
pic-2

Description Mason James 2015-06-24 03:01:36 UTC
A biblio's 'modification history' view confusingly includes info from a unrelated item
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2015-06-24 10:02:29 UTC
Hi Mason, can you please add a bit more information?
Comment 2 Mason James 2015-06-24 20:43:08 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #1)
> Hi Mason, can you please add a bit more information?

yes, sure...

pic-1 shows the detail page of bib 65850

pic-2 shows the 'modification log' of bib 65850

notice how in the mod_log page, the information for *item* 65850 is included too, its confusing people
Comment 3 Mason James 2015-06-24 20:43:50 UTC
Created attachment 40603 [details]
pic-1
Comment 4 Mason James 2015-06-24 20:44:20 UTC
Created attachment 40604 [details]
pic-2
Comment 5 Mason James 2015-06-24 20:54:07 UTC
i guess the easy fix is to pass an extra arg to the script

perhaps,  tools/viewlog.pl?type=bib or item ?
Comment 6 Mason James 2017-06-15 11:58:16 UTC
(In reply to Mason James from comment #5)
> i guess the easy fix is to pass an extra arg to the script
> 
> perhaps,  tools/viewlog.pl?type=bib or item ?

hmm.. looking at this again, it seems that the word 'item' is confusingly used as a general descriptor, rather than anything specific to the 'items' table

i think it would be less confusing if 'item' was relabelled as 'object' here
Comment 7 Jonathan Druart 2019-05-30 02:41:25 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 10352 ***