Bug 17536 - Remove Duplication of receipting code in EDI
Summary: Remove Duplication of receipting code in EDI
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Acquisitions (show other bugs)
Version: master
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Martin Renvoize
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 7736
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2016-11-02 10:22 UTC by Colin Campbell
Modified: 2022-07-03 06:23 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Attachments
Proposed patch (8.39 KB, patch)
2016-11-02 10:35 UTC, Colin Campbell
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Colin Campbell 2016-11-02 10:22:22 UTC
When the Current Koha/EDI.pm was written the api to Acquisitions::ModReceiveOrder was unstable as a result the process was duplicated in Koha::EDI as the interface has stabilised EDI should revert to using the Acquisitions interface and remove the duplicate code. This should guard against bugs from incompatibilities and allow it to take advantage of enhancements in C4::acquisitions (e.g. new handling of Standing Orders)
Comment 1 Colin Campbell 2016-11-02 10:35:34 UTC
Created attachment 57071 [details] [review]
Proposed patch

This patch removes the code which duplicated functionality from C4::Acquisitions and instead calls ModReceiveOrder. Removes potential divergencies from the two paths. Koha::EDI now only required to load data provided by the GIR segment in the invoice.

This removes some anomalies which caused partial receipts to sometimes skip adding a barcode to some items (if supplier applies barcodes)
Comment 2 Colin Campbell 2016-11-15 12:45:40 UTC
Looking at a small change to this patch to eliminate an unnecssary warning
Comment 3 Katrin Fischer 2022-07-02 23:06:36 UTC
It looks like this patch was never finished. Should we reset to NEW/unassigned?
Comment 4 Martin Renvoize 2022-07-03 06:23:58 UTC
I'll take a look, see if I can work out what was being done here.