Bug 7865

Summary: Command line utility to BATCH load borrower pictures based on Cardnumber
Product: Koha Reporter: David Schuster <dschust1>
Component: Command-line UtilitiesAssignee: David Schuster <dschust1>
Status: RESOLVED LATER QA Contact:
Severity: enhancement    
Priority: P5 - low CC: dschust1, katrin.fischer, 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:
Attachments: command line utility to load borrower pictures

Description David Schuster 2012-04-02 03:41:32 UTC
This command line utility can be setup in Cron to load borrower pictures on a regular basis.  This has been in place with Plano ISD for 4 years loading 50,000 pictures with updates twice a week from a remote server.

A test case will follow.
Comment 1 David Schuster 2012-04-02 04:10:23 UTC
Created attachment 8750 [details] [review]
command line utility to load borrower pictures

Test instructions to follow
Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2014-11-09 18:31:41 UTC
Looks like this got lost - I think it will need a bit of work to fit with our current coding guidelines, but moving it to 'needs signoff' for some testing.
Comment 3 Owen Leonard 2014-11-14 17:10:14 UTC
QA tools say:

 FAIL	misc/cronjobs/loadimages.pl
   OK	  critic
   FAIL	  forbidden patterns
		forbidden pattern: tab char (line 152)
                <snip> etc. etc.
		forbidden pattern: Koha is now under the GPLv3 license (line 7)
   FAIL	  pod
		
		 at line EOF
		 in file misc/cronjobs/loadimages.pl
		=over on line 67 without closing =back
		*** ERROR: 
		=over on line 57 without closing =back
Comment 4 Martin Renvoize 2020-02-24 16:20:37 UTC
I had a quick go at re-basing this and updating it to current code standards but it looks to be allot of work.. the original script doesn't pass the basic perlcritic tests with a number of defined but unused variables and POD errors at least.

It also seems to use lots of modules needlessly so probably needs a rethink.

Is anyone actually interested in this one, or should we remove it from the queue and mark is as RESOLVED LATER or something similar?
Comment 5 Katrin Fischer 2023-08-04 19:28:05 UTC
(In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #4)
> I had a quick go at re-basing this and updating it to current code standards
> but it looks to be allot of work.. the original script doesn't pass the
> basic perlcritic tests with a number of defined but unused variables and POD
> errors at least.
> 
> It also seems to use lots of modules needlessly so probably needs a rethink.
> 
> Is anyone actually interested in this one, or should we remove it from the
> queue and mark is as RESOLVED LATER or something similar?

Another 3 years, no comment. Closing RESOLVED LATER as suggested.