Scenario: A patron has an item with a high number of holds ready for pickup. They come to their library get the item and use the SCO to try to borrow it. When they scan the item they are given the message: Item cannot be checked out. Sorry, this item cannot be checked out at this station. Please see a member of the library staff. Additionally, if they don’t notice the message and scan another item, they are returned their account summary/the check-out screen with neither item checked out to the patron. At best this creates a scenario where there's an inconvenient extra step that the patron has to take in order to get their item. At worst, it can lead to the patron inadvertently taking two items with them that have not been checked-out. For the item that is on hold this can lead to further confusion when the it is returned (Koha will indicate that the item must go back on the hold shelf for the patron that just returned it) or when holds are cleared from the shelf (the item will be listed there but won’t be found). To replicate: 1.) In system preferences, go to Circulation preferences->Holds Policy. 2.) There are five preferences grouped together for decreaseLoanHighHolds, make sure to set the first drop down to Enable and enter the reduced loan period and the number of holds that will trigger the reduction (you can configure the other options as desired). 3.) Place a hold on an item with a patron you can use at self-check and place enough additional holds on the item with other accounts in order to trigger the decreased loan period according to your preferences. 4.) Check-in an item from the record with the holds and confirm the hold for the patron. 5.) Log into self-check with this patron and attempt to check-out the item. 6.) You will be taken to the error message. 7.) Scan the barcode again, you'll be returned to the SCO screen.
This is a huge inconvenience to patrons. This should be addressed. These items will check out through SIP, but with Koha's SCO module.
Created attachment 105867 [details] Asu
I believe this may have been another manifestation of bug 26301.. can we varify whether this is still a problem on current master?
(In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #5) > I believe this may have been another manifestation of bug 26301.. can we > varify whether this is still a problem on current master? It is still an issue for our clients atleast. Haven't found a workaround to it.
(In reply to Kalle Karlsson from comment #6) > (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #5) > > I believe this may have been another manifestation of bug 26301.. can we > > varify whether this is still a problem on current master? > > It is still an issue for our clients atleast. Haven't found a workaround to > it. What versions?
(In reply to Magnus Enger from comment #7) > (In reply to Kalle Karlsson from comment #6) > > (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #5) > > > I believe this may have been another manifestation of bug 26301.. can we > > > varify whether this is still a problem on current master? > > > > It is still an issue for our clients atleast. Haven't found a workaround to > > it. > > What versions? 20.11 and 21.11 from the ones that have reported the issue.