Bug 37439

Summary: ChildNeedsGuarantor description misleading
Product: Koha Reporter: Caroline Cyr La Rose <caroline.cyr-la-rose>
Component: System AdministrationAssignee: Kyle M Hall (khall) <kyle>
Status: Signed Off --- QA Contact: Testopia <testopia>
Severity: trivial    
Priority: P5 - low CC: gmcharlt, kyle, magnus
Version: Main   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
See Also: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=36059
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39180
GIT URL: Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: String patch Documentation contact:
Documentation submission: Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
Circulation function:
Bug Depends on: 12133    
Bug Blocks:    
Attachments: Bug 37439: Fix misleading ChildNeedsGuarantor description
Bug 37439: Fix misleading ChildNeedsGuarantor description

Description Caroline Cyr La Rose 2024-07-23 19:37:50 UTC
Unless I misunderstood the purpose of the ChildNeedsGuarantor system preference, I  think the description is misleading.

It currently states

A child patron [doesn't need/must have] a guarantor when adding the patron.

However, this is not limited to children.  It affect patrons whose patron category is set to 'can be guarantee'. 

I'm not sure what the best formulation would be.

Maybe something like

When a patron category is set to 'can be guarantee', the guarantor is [mandatory / not mandatory].
Comment 1 Kyle M Hall (khall) 2025-05-15 16:42:10 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Magnus Enger 2025-05-16 07:09:19 UTC
Created attachment 182509 [details] [review]
Bug 37439: Fix misleading ChildNeedsGuarantor description

Unless I misunderstood the purpose of the ChildNeedsGuarantor system preference, I  think the description is misleading.

Signed-off-by: Magnus Enger <magnus@libriotech.no>
Applied the patch, reloaded the syspref page for ChildNeedsGuarantor,
verified the new description looks OK.
Comment 3 Magnus Enger 2025-05-16 07:11:26 UTC
After signing off I started wondering if the name of the syspref itself makes sense, but changing it might be too much work for very litle gain?