Summary: | Make patron name fields more flexible | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize> |
Component: | Patrons | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | andrewfh, gmcharlt, kyle.m.hall, lucas, nick, sally.healey, sbcornell |
Version: | master | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
See Also: |
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28633 https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=26146 https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=21978 |
||
Change sponsored?: | --- | Patch complexity: | --- |
Documentation contact: | Documentation submission: | ||
Text to go in the release notes: | Version(s) released in: | ||
Bug Depends on: | 30617 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 7680 |
Description
Martin Renvoize
2022-04-20 08:47:42 UTC
In bug 21978 comment 9 Christopher Brannon suggests >What if we could just get away from the name structures, and have 5 or 6 generic >name fields (i.e. Name1, Name2, Name3 etc.), and we can label them in the editor >for whatever purpose we need, and on screens they appear in the order that they >are used. For example, Name1 is used as Surname, Name2 is First Name, Name3 is >Middle Name, and so on. Sort will always sort in order of the fields (Name1 >first, Name2 next, and so on), and would display similar to how they appear now: > >In results: >Name1, Name2 [Name3] [Name4] [Name5] [Name6] > >On patron account: >Name2 [Name3] [Name4] [Name5] [Name6] Name1 > I think this approach could work well, but it needs a little thought as to how it would work with de-duplicating and sorting and we may still need to implement display templating on top as currently you can call the patron-title include with various options for different displays in different places. I wonder if we could refine our display to a couple of more formal options.. 'short' and 'long' form perhaps.. right now we have various combinations of options in the template.. like including title or not, othernames, inverse ordering, cardnumber, linking.. etc etc patron-title.inc currently allows for the following output formats * surname (othernames) * <span class="patron-title">title</span> surname, firstname (othernames) * <span class="patron-title">title</span> firtname (othernames) surname * title surname, firstname (othernames) * title firstname (othernames) surname * surname (othernames) (cardnumber) * <span class="patron-title">title</span> surname, firstname (othernames) (cardnumber) * <span class="patron-title">title</span> firtname (othernames) surname (cardnumber) * title surname, firstname (othernames) (cardnumber) * title firstname (othernames) surname (cardnumber) * cardnumber * <span>A patron from library [% Branches.GetName( patron.branchcode ) | html -%]</span> *** Bug 24710 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** There was a try at doing this by surrounding name fields by spans, bug 24710, in the template includes, but it became clear that wasn't an option as the no_html option on the includes, used for title elements, precludes us from using said spans. (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #2) > patron-title.inc currently allows for the following output formats > > * surname (othernames) > * <span class="patron-title">title</span> surname, firstname (othernames) > * <span class="patron-title">title</span> firtname (othernames) surname > * title surname, firstname (othernames) > * title firstname (othernames) surname > * surname (othernames) (cardnumber) > * <span class="patron-title">title</span> surname, firstname (othernames) > (cardnumber) > * <span class="patron-title">title</span> firtname (othernames) surname > (cardnumber) > * title surname, firstname (othernames) (cardnumber) > * title firstname (othernames) surname (cardnumber) > * cardnumber > * <span>A patron from library [% Branches.GetName( patron.branchcode ) | > html -%]</span> I like the idea of having clearer definitions on when to use what. Long, short, anonymous? The versions with span and without are for use in the title tag. And you'd probably still want title/no title. Probably would be nice to see how often each is used to see if we could replace one or another or if there is a good reason for them to be needed. Here are some formats that would be appropriate for us: firstname surname firstname (other names) surname firstname (othernames) surname (cardnumber) As I look at it now, we really just want to be able to output names in a variety of formats without the title. (e.g. including "title" in the item status field in item detail.pl. is too much.) We are also an outlier in that we have repurposed the title field for pronouns. So this would also be desirable for us: firstname surname (title) I hope I'm answering the right question here. ;) Hi Sarah, thx for weighing in. Just a note: 22.11 will have 2 new fields: pronouns and middle name. So you will be able to move from title to pronouns if you'd like. |