Bug 17291 - Add <item>...</item> syntax to advance_notices.pl
Summary: Add <item>...</item> syntax to advance_notices.pl
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Notices (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Barton Chittenden
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 30259
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2016-09-12 13:02 UTC by Barton Chittenden
Modified: 2023-06-25 12:14 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

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Barton Chittenden 2016-09-12 13:02:59 UTC
advance_notices.pl, which handles DUE, DUEDGST, PREDUE and PREDUEDGST notices, does *NOT* accept the


<item> ... </item>

Syntax used by overdue notices.

This is *VERY* confusing to users -- It's one of the most frequent trouble tickets handled by Bywater Solutions. As far as I can tell, there's no reason *not* to fix this.
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2017-01-03 09:28:33 UTC
+1 - more consistency and better formatting options.
Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2019-01-02 15:55:26 UTC
Still much wanted :)
Comment 3 David Cook 2022-10-10 22:36:04 UTC
Since we're moving to TT syntax for notices, perhaps we should invalidate this one?
Comment 4 Katrin Fischer 2022-10-11 09:40:39 UTC
(In reply to David Cook from comment #3)
> Since we're moving to TT syntax for notices, perhaps we should invalidate
> this one?

I've linked to bug 29100  with that idea in mind, but wanted to have nice documentation in place first :)
Comment 5 Katrin Fischer 2023-06-25 12:14:04 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Cook from comment #3)
> > Since we're moving to TT syntax for notices, perhaps we should invalidate
> > this one?
> 
> I've linked to bug 29100  with that idea in mind, but wanted to have nice
> documentation in place first :)

We could do better with documentation still, but I think bug 29100 obsoletes this one.