Summary: | Staff can place next available holds when rule is set to forced | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Christopher Brannon <cbrannon> |
Component: | Hold requests | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | gmcharlt |
Version: | Main | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Change sponsored?: | --- | Patch complexity: | --- |
Documentation contact: | Documentation submission: | ||
Text to go in the release notes: | Version(s) released in: | ||
Circulation function: |
Description
Christopher Brannon
2017-04-26 16:52:48 UTC
Rebased. Please try again. Sorry for delays! (In reply to Christopher Brannon from comment #1) > Rebased. Please try again. Sorry for delays! Wrong bug. Ignore this comment. This is not a bug, but intentional - the setting is only meant to work for the OPAC. To make this clearer, it's labelled "OPAC item level holds" now in current versions. I think the idea is that staff know what they do, so they can do a bit more than the patrons and get to pick. As this is from 2017 I will close "WONTFIX" - please reopen as an enhancement request if still seen as a problem. I would not have created this patch request had I thought this was an expected behavior. It is not. As it is a problem, there needs to be a way to limit this further. Not all staff at all libraries are going to keep this exception in mind. There is absolutely nothing about the item that stands out that indicates to staff that they should only place next available holds for the item on rare occasions. We should this preference be a global feature that affects both sides of circulation, and have a preference to indicate what rule with this condition can be overridden. I would NOT want a preference that just turns it off for everything on the staff side. I think there are different use cases at play here. I'd like it better if we could keep staff and OPAC separate in defining the behaviour. An example would be 'only allow record level holds' - if staff needs a specific item because it's the oldest, damaged or the one with the extra material, they can place item level holds from staff side for internal use. For us it has always been more of a feature. It's not true there is no visible indication in staff, for example, for OPAC item level holds = Forced, Koha shows a note for each item on the place hold screen: Item level hold forced from OPAC Maybe if this stood out a bit more? (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #5) > I think there are different use cases at play here. I'd like it better if we > could keep staff and OPAC separate in defining the behaviour. > > An example would be 'only allow record level holds' - if staff needs a > specific item because it's the oldest, damaged or the one with the extra > material, they can place item level holds from staff side for internal use. Katrin, your example is confusing me. This would not block item level holds on staff side. It would block the record level (next available) holds on the staff side. It would mean they would ALWAYS have to pick a specific item. Right now they can do both. Can you present a case for why staff would ever need to bypass a block to a next available item when they would always have the choice to pick a specific item? And, if they did have a scenario where they would need to bypass and do a next available hold, why a warning would be better than overriding? > It's not true there is no visible indication in staff, for example, for OPAC > item level holds = Forced, Koha shows a note for each item on the place hold > screen: > > Item level hold forced from OPAC > > Maybe if this stood out a bit more? Obviously this isn't obvious enough. Regardless, staff have a habit of blowing through such messages when they are working quickly and not taking the time to read messages. At the very least, it needs to be an override. |