Summary: | Add pagination to the Z39.50 results page | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Frédérick Capovilla <fcapovilla> |
Component: | Z39.50 / SRU / OpenSearch Servers | Assignee: | Frédérick Capovilla <fcapovilla> |
Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | chris, jwagner, m.de.rooy, nengard, paul.poulain, veron |
Version: | 3.10 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Change sponsored?: | Sponsored | Patch complexity: | --- |
Documentation contact: | Documentation submission: | ||
Text to go in the release notes: | Version(s) released in: | ||
Circulation function: | |||
Attachments: |
Add paginations to the Z39.50 search results.
[SIGNED-OFF] Bug 8570 - Add pagination to the Z39.50 results page |
Description
Frédérick Capovilla
2012-08-03 18:01:04 UTC
Comment hidden (obsolete)
Patch sponsored by the CCSR ( http://www.ccsr.qc.ca ) *** Bug 5044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I am really happy to see this long-missing feature added, but I'm not so happy to see an entirely new method of offering the user pagination options. Currently we have two primary ways of offering pagination options: The plain link kind (as seen on catalog search results) and the DataTables way. It would be much, much better in my opinion to pick one of these established interface patterns than to introduce a whole new one. This feature was made a long time ago and got approved for release to the community by our client recently. There is no doubt using the existing patterns would be the best way to do this, but for now all we have is a working version with it's own pagination method. Created attachment 11671 [details] [review] [SIGNED-OFF] Bug 8570 - Add pagination to the Z39.50 results page Add paginations to the Z39.50 search results. http://bugs.koha-community.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8570 Signed-off-by: Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org> QA comment: I'm really annoyed, as Owen is, to see that this patch does not use datatable... It's an improvement expected since a long time OTOH. We have: * Owen = yes * Paul = would prefer no and ask for another patch, that could never be submitted * another one opinion ? PS: "This feature was made a long time ago and got approved for release to the community by our client recently." I think this is a wrong way to do with customers. You should say *before* the contract that everything will be released ASAP. That's how we do at BibLibre, librarians are OK with that. We even put everything on a public git repo before the development is done. If you ask *after*, they will ask their legal advisor, and it will take a long time (but I'm french, maybe it's different in north-america...) (In reply to comment #6) > * Paul = would prefer no and ask for another patch, that could never be > submitted I get the impression that this implementation is good enough for the original sponsor and that a follow-up is unlikely. I signed off because I think getting this functionality into Koha is important, despite my reservations about the way it was done. Agree with Owen. Marc QA comment * passes koha-qa.pl after fixing some remaining tabs in the code, i've added a follow-up * passed QA Patch pushed to master |