Bug 13743 - Primary key for issues-table
Summary: Primary key for issues-table
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 13790
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Circulation (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-02-20 17:28 UTC by Olli-Antti Kivilahti
Modified: 2015-03-23 11:24 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Bug 13743 - Primary key for issues-table (3.81 KB, patch)
2015-02-20 17:34 UTC, Olli-Antti Kivilahti
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 13743 - Primary key for issues-table (3.85 KB, patch)
2015-02-20 17:41 UTC, Olli-Antti Kivilahti
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 13743 - Primary key for issues-table (3.85 KB, patch)
2015-02-20 17:43 UTC, Olli-Antti Kivilahti
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 13743 - Primary key for issues-table (5.88 KB, patch)
2015-03-20 17:02 UTC, Olli-Antti Kivilahti
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2015-02-20 17:28:35 UTC

    
Comment 1 Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2015-02-20 17:34:59 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2015-02-20 17:41:13 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 3 Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2015-02-20 17:43:29 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 4 Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2015-03-20 17:02:30 UTC
Created attachment 37060 [details] [review]
Bug 13743 - Primary key for issues-table

Each table must have a primary key.
This makes extending issues-related functionality much easier.

TEST PLAN:

1. Check-out Items for you.
2. Check-in Items from you.
3. Check-out using the SIP2-server.
4. Check-in using the SIP2-server.
Comment 5 Katrin Fischer 2015-03-22 06:40:06 UTC
Hi Olli, 

I think this doesn't look quite right - the database update instance is in the wrong place in the file and I feel the old_issues should not auto_increment. Also I think this wouldn't renumber the old entries?
Please take a look at Kyle's patch on bug 13790 and also my comments on bug 9303.

We did a similar patch for reserves and old_reserves in the past, maybe that could be helpful to look at as well.
Comment 6 Kyle M Hall 2015-03-23 11:24:44 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 13790 ***