| Summary: | reserve_stats.pl: Further improvements to refine hold status | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy> |
| Component: | Reports | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | emily.lamancusa |
| 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: | 23059 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Marcel de Rooy
2023-10-05 06:13:07 UTC
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #0) > From 23059: > > "One thing that would be nice to see as a follow-up would be the ability for > libraries that have in-processing and in-transit statuses to be able to > separate those out from "Placed". But that requires extra processing to > determine whether those statuses are relevant to the library, so it's a bit > out of scope for this bug, and doesn't need to block the alignment of the > report with the universally-relevant hold statuses." > > How do we define those 'universally-relevant hold statuses' exactly? I was just trying to say that "in-transit" and "in-processing" would be a nice follow up, but don't need to be a blocker on 23059. The four statuses your patch includes (Cancelled, Filled, Waiting, and Placed) are applicable to all libraries that use holds, and are a major improvement on what was there before, so I felt that patch should go forward as-is. |