Bug 18666 - Update 16.06.00.028 failing because of missing no_auto_renewal_after
Summary: Update 16.06.00.028 failing because of missing no_auto_renewal_after
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Installation and upgrade (web-based installer) (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low major
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 17135
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2017-05-24 16:14 UTC by Katrin Fischer
Modified: 2020-01-06 20:17 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

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

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Katrin Fischer 2017-05-24 16:14:18 UTC 
The database update 16.06.00.028 fails with following error in an update from 3.22.19 to 16.11.08:

Attempting upgrade to 16.06.00.028 (Bug 17135) ...
DBD::mysql::st execute failed: Unknown column 'me.no_auto_renewal_after' 
in 'field list' [for Statement "SELECT `me`.`categorycode`, 
`me`.`itemtype`, `me`.`restrictedtype`, `me`.`rentaldiscount`, 
`me`.`reservecharge`, `me`.`fine`, `me`.`finedays`, 
`me`.`maxsuspensiondays`, `me`.`firstremind`, `me`.`chargeperiod`, 
`me`.`chargeperiod_charge_at`, `me`.`accountsent`, `me`.`chargename`, 
`me`.`maxissueqty`, `me`.`maxonsiteissueqty`, `me`.`issuelength`, 
`me`.`lengthunit`, `me`.`hardduedate`, `me`.`hardduedatecompare`, 
`me`.`renewalsallowed`, `me`.`renewalperiod`, `me`.`norenewalbefore`, 
`me`.`auto_renew`, `me`.`no_auto_renewal_after`, `me`.`reservesallowed`, 
`me`.`holds_per_record`, `me`.`branchcode`, `me`.`overduefinescap`, 
`me`.`cap_fine_to_replacement_price`, `me`.`onshelfholds`, 
`me`.`opacitemholds`, `me`.`article_requests` FROM `issuingrules` `me` 
WHERE ( ( `me`.`branchcode` = ? AND `me`.`categorycode` = ? AND 
`me`.`itemtype` = ? ) )" with ParamValues: 0='XXX', 1='STUDENT', 
2='NORMAL'] at /usr/share/perl5/DBIx/Class/Storage/DBI.pm line 1832.

It's missing the column no_auto_renewal_after which is not present at this time in the database. It's added later on with update 16.06.00.046.

Could it be because the schema already has the column?
Comment 1 Jonathan Druart 2017-05-24 16:19:18 UTC 
I'd suggest to remove the execution of this script from the updatedatabase.pl script and move it to the maintenance directory.

The updatedatabase.pl script must not use C4 or Koha modules.

The update entry could be replaced with a warning message to tell the admin they should execute the script.
Comment 2 Jacek Ablewicz 2017-05-25 11:25:25 UTC 
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #0)
> The database update 16.06.00.028 fails with following error in an update
> from 3.22.19 to 16.11.08:
> 
> Attempting upgrade to 16.06.00.028 (Bug 17135) ...
> DBD::mysql::st execute failed: Unknown column 'me.no_auto_renewal_after' 
> in 'field list' [for Statement "SELECT `me`.`categorycode`, 
> `me`.`itemtype`, `me`.`restrictedtype`, `me`.`rentaldiscount`, 
> `me`.`reservecharge`, `me`.`fine`, `me`.`finedays`, 
> `me`.`maxsuspensiondays`, `me`.`firstremind`, `me`.`chargeperiod`, 
> `me`.`chargeperiod_charge_at`, `me`.`accountsent`, `me`.`chargename`, 
> `me`.`maxissueqty`, `me`.`maxonsiteissueqty`, `me`.`issuelength`, 
> `me`.`lengthunit`, `me`.`hardduedate`, `me`.`hardduedatecompare`, 
> `me`.`renewalsallowed`, `me`.`renewalperiod`, `me`.`norenewalbefore`, 
> `me`.`auto_renew`, `me`.`no_auto_renewal_after`, `me`.`reservesallowed`, 
> `me`.`holds_per_record`, `me`.`branchcode`, `me`.`overduefinescap`, 
> `me`.`cap_fine_to_replacement_price`, `me`.`onshelfholds`, 
> `me`.`opacitemholds`, `me`.`article_requests` FROM `issuingrules` `me` 
> WHERE ( ( `me`.`branchcode` = ? AND `me`.`categorycode` = ? AND 
> `me`.`itemtype` = ? ) )" with ParamValues: 0='XXX', 1='STUDENT', 
> 2='NORMAL'] at /usr/share/perl5/DBIx/Class/Storage/DBI.pm line 1832.
> 
> It's missing the column no_auto_renewal_after which is not present at this
> time in the database. It's added later on with update 16.06.00.046.
> 
> Could it be because the schema already has the column?

Yes, looks like it happens because during this particular upgrade step DBIx schema is out of sync with the actual database structure, and CalcFine (after Bug 17599 got pushed ?) is prone to fail because of that.

During upgrades from 16.05.03+ to 16.11.* or 17.05.*, there will be an attempt to re-run the script from Bug 17135, and it will fail - but at least the non-accruing FU fine records got already closed in earlier 16.05.03 upgrade step, so this error should be (relatively) harmless.

Upgrades to 16.11+ from versions earlier than 16.05.03 are affected to a larger extent by this issue - execution of the script will fail, some non-accruing FU fines will remain unclosed, and they may get overwritten later on.
Comment 3 Fridolin Somers 2018-11-15 08:34:55 UTC 
Oh crap this is still valid.
Comment 4 Martin Renvoize (ashimema) 2019-03-15 16:33:09 UTC 
/me wonders if this can be close and 'RESOLVED WONTFIX' at this point?
Comment 5 Katrin Fischer 2019-03-16 09:35:24 UTC 
We should have fixed it... but we haven't. I think closing now as WONTFIX makes sense as the versions affected are no longer maintained.