Bug 23942 - After upgrading koha from version 16.5 to 18.11 itemtype, itype and other list boxes corresponding to authorised values attached to frameworks fail to show the selected values upon editing the bib and item records
Summary: After upgrading koha from version 16.5 to 18.11 itemtype, itype and other lis...
Status: CLOSED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Cataloging (show other bugs)
Version: 18.11
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low normal (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2019-11-01 06:31 UTC by T. Jogi Raju
Modified: 2021-06-14 21:29 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

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


Attachments
Item editor does not show the previous values for the list boxes (57.32 KB, image/png)
2019-11-01 06:31 UTC, T. Jogi Raju
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description T. Jogi Raju 2019-11-01 06:31:06 UTC
Created attachment 94934 [details]
Item editor does not show the previous values for the list boxes

I have upgraded Koha from version 16.5 to 18.11. After that when I edit the biblio record the itemtype list box (942$c) does not show the previous value. In the same way when the item records edited the list boxes corresponding to the authorised values LOST, DAMAGED, LOC, NOT_FOR_LOAN, RESTRICTED and itype (itemtypes) the previous values are not shown in the editor.
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2019-11-01 13:11:23 UTC
Did you see any errors during your update?
Are the itemtypes and authorised values still configured correctly?
Did you check the configuration in your frameworks?

I would recommend bringing this up on the mailing list first to rule out a problem specific to your installation. We have run updates up to 18.11 and have never seen any issue like that.
Comment 2 Jonathan Druart 2019-11-19 10:05:09 UTC
The script on bug 21466 can help you to search for such inconsistencies. It's not pushed yet however.
Comment 3 Jonathan Druart 2020-06-05 09:39:14 UTC
Did you try the script?

I am closing this, please reopen if it is still valid.