Summary: | ModItemTransfer no longer updates item.datelastseen | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Nick Clemens (kidclamp) <nick> |
Component: | Circulation | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | CLOSED INVALID | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | gmcharlt, jonathan.druart, kyle.m.hall, martin.renvoize |
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: | |||
Bug Depends on: | 24446 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Nick Clemens (kidclamp)
2021-04-23 15:25:54 UTC
ModItemTransfer is about to be removed ;). Coming back to this... are you sure Nick? Inside ModItemTransfer we now call the Koha::Item->request_transfer method followed by the Koha::Item::Transfer->transit method (if the item is not checked out) to immediately put it into transit. The transit method calls 'ModDateLastSeen' internally, so this should be getting caught there and updated as expected. What if the item is checked out? (before was bug 24446 date last seen was updated) (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #3) > What if the item is checked out? (before was bug 24446 date last seen was > updated) Correct.. but it's by design. If the item is checked out when a transfer is requested upon it.. then the item hasn't actually been seen has it ;) Pretty sure I actually discussed this at the time.. perhaps I missed someone relevant. Nick, what is the use case/bug resulting from this change? (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #4) > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #3) > > What if the item is checked out? (before was bug 24446 date last seen was > > updated) > > Correct.. but it's by design. If the item is checked out when a transfer is > requested upon it.. then the item hasn't actually been seen has it ;) > Pretty sure I actually discussed this at the time.. perhaps I missed someone > relevant. > > Nick, what is the use case/bug resulting from this change I filed this simply because I noticed the change, I haven't heard any reports, but I wanted to confirm the change was intentional |