Created attachment 59433 [details] [review] Bug 17963: TT syntax for notices - Prove that AR_* are compatible Nothing new here since bug 17962, the AR_* notice messages are quite simple. They send the article_request, patron, biblio, biblioitem, item and library linked to the article request. All the fields from these 6 tables should still be accessible using the TT syntax. Test plan: Define TT notice templates for AR_PENDING, AR_PROCESSING, AR_COMPLETED or AR_CANCELED. You should manage to create a template to generate the same result as the historical syntax.
Created attachment 59434 [details] [review] Bug 17963: TT syntax for notices - Prove that AR_* are compatible Nothing new here since bug 17962, the AR_* notice messages are quite simple. They send the article_request, patron, biblio, biblioitem, item and library linked to the article request. All the fields from these 6 tables should still be accessible using the TT syntax. Test plan: Define TT notice templates for AR_PENDING, AR_PROCESSING, AR_COMPLETED or AR_CANCELED. You should manage to create a template to generate the same result as the historical syntax.
Created attachment 59440 [details] [review] Bug 17963: TT syntax for notices - Prove that AR_* are compatible Nothing new here since bug 17962, the AR_* notice messages are quite simple. They send the article_request, patron, biblio, biblioitem, item and library linked to the article request. All the fields from these 6 tables should still be accessible using the TT syntax. Test plan: Define TT notice templates for AR_PENDING, AR_PROCESSING, AR_COMPLETED or AR_CANCELED. You should manage to create a template to generate the same result as the historical syntax.
I think there is missing article_requests table definition in C4::Letters, I am getting the notice generated without any information from article_requests table... but test is passing...
Created attachment 59539 [details] [review] Bug 17963: TT syntax for notices - Prove that AR_* are compatible Nothing new here since bug 17962, the AR_* notice messages are quite simple. They send the article_request, patron, biblio, biblioitem, item and library linked to the article request. All the fields from these 6 tables should still be accessible using the TT syntax. Test plan: Define TT notice templates for AR_PENDING, AR_PROCESSING, AR_COMPLETED or AR_CANCELED. You should manage to create a template to generate the same result as the historical syntax.
(In reply to Josef Moravec from comment #4) > I think there is missing article_requests table definition in C4::Letters, I > am getting the notice generated without any information from > article_requests table... but test is passing... Yes indeed, the test was completely wrong!
Created attachment 60402 [details] [review] Bug 17963: TT syntax for notices - Prove that AR_* are compatible Nothing new here since bug 17962, the AR_* notice messages are quite simple. They send the article_request, patron, biblio, biblioitem, item and library linked to the article request. All the fields from these 6 tables should still be accessible using the TT syntax. Test plan: Define TT notice templates for AR_PENDING, AR_PROCESSING, AR_COMPLETED or AR_CANCELED. You should manage to create a template to generate the same result as the historical syntax. Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
QA: Looking here now
Created attachment 61594 [details] [review] Bug 17963: TT syntax for notices - Prove that AR_* are compatible Nothing new here since bug 17962, the AR_* notice messages are quite simple. They send the article_request, patron, biblio, biblioitem, item and library linked to the article request. All the fields from these 6 tables should still be accessible using the TT syntax. Test plan: Define TT notice templates for AR_PENDING, AR_PROCESSING, AR_COMPLETED or AR_CANCELED. You should manage to create a template to generate the same result as the historical syntax. Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Pushed to master for 17.05, thanks Jonathan!
Dependencies are not in 16.11.x, so this is not needed there.