Bug 35867

Summary:	Bug 33039 needs to be easier for librarians to use/understand
Product:	Koha	Reporter:	Lucas Gass (lukeg) <lucas>
Component:	Serials	Assignee:	Bugs List <koha-bugs>
Status:	NEW ---	QA Contact:	Testopia <testopia>
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P5 - low
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:	33039
Bug Blocks:

Description Lucas Gass (lukeg) 2024-01-22 21:29:02 UTC

Bug 33039 introduced a new field 'Publication date template:' which is mapped to subscription.published_on_template

This seems like it needs some work before it is useful to librarians:

1. No mention of it here: https://schema.koha-community.org/master/tables/subscription.html
2. Publication date template requires Template Toolkit to get the desired 'publisheddatetext'. There should be some hints on what can be added here, and what cannot. 

It appears like the following can be added:

subscription      => $subscription,
serialseq         => $serialseq,
serialseq_x       => $subscription->lastvalue1(),
serialseq_y       => $subscription->lastvalue2(),
serialseq_z       => $subscription->lastvalue3(),28 	
subscriptionid    => $subscriptionid,
biblionumber      => $biblionumber,
status            => $status,
planneddate       => $planneddate,
publisheddate     => $publisheddate,
publisheddatetext => $publisheddatetext,
notes             => $notes,	
routingnotes      => $routingnotes,


Could these simply be options that a serial librarian could pick from a list? I don't think we should assume that librarians are comfortable writing/editing/testing template toolkit.

Comment 1 Lucas Gass (lukeg) 2024-01-22 21:30:25 UTC

At the very least I think we need hints on serials/subscription-add.pl to aid here.

Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2024-01-22 21:35:43 UTC

>Could these simply be options that a serial librarian could pick from a list? 
>I don't think we should assume that librarians are comfortable 
>writing/editing/testing template toolkit.

Something we need to solve as we are trying to deprecate the older syntax... but I agree. We need to think about how to make this easier, at least by documentation, but ideally also allow for easier testing and better editor functionality.