Bug 18187

Summary: finishreceive.pl: Save bookseller name into items acquisition source field
Product: Koha Reporter: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy>
Component: AcquisitionsAssignee: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Testopia <testopia>
Severity: enhancement    
Priority: P5 - low CC: dubyk
Version: Main   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Change sponsored?: --- Patch complexity: Trivial patch
Documentation contact: Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
Circulation function:
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 18188    
Attachments: Bug 18187: finishreceive.pl: Save bookseller name into items acquisition source field

Description Marcel de Rooy 2017-03-01 12:41:54 UTC

    
Comment 1 Marcel de Rooy 2017-03-01 13:03:12 UTC
Created attachment 60754 [details] [review]
Bug 18187: finishreceive.pl: Save bookseller name into items acquisition source field

Currently, finishreceive saves the literal booksellerid (a number) into
the item text field labeled as "Source of acquisition", unfortunately
called booksellerid. (This is the case for AcqCreateItem == receiving.)

I opened up another report for renaming this item field (18188).
On this report we make finishreceive.pl save the name of the bookseller
into the item field. This is more informative.

But I could imagine that we need a broader solution:
[1] Do we really always want that information in an item?
[2] Should orderreceive not put this information in the item field? Now we
    postpone that to finishreceive; finishreceive just overwrites these
    fields, completely ignoring what was there.

Any feedback is welcome.

Test plan:
[1] Set AcqCreateItem to receiving.
[2] Receive an order. Check 952$e in the resulting item.
Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2017-03-05 10:42:03 UTC
I think we do want the information in the item, as some libraries might not keep the acquisitions information forever. A clean solution might be to have a free text field to use manually and a proper booksellerid field. 

As receiving is the last step, I think overwriting there with the latest vendor makes kind of sense to me.