Bug 27254 - Damaged items need more control over holds
Summary: Damaged items need more control over holds
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Hold requests (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-12-16 17:53 UTC by Christopher Brannon
Modified: 2023-07-05 15:24 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Christopher Brannon 2020-12-16 17:53:37 UTC
Currently, NOT_LOAN is setup so that negative values will allow holds and positive values will not.

DAMAGED does not have this functionality, to my knowledge.  AllowHoldsOnDamagedItems gives you an ON/OFF setting for DAMAGED items.

It would be great if we did away with AllowHoldsOnDamagedItems and instead DAMAGED would function the same as NOT_LOAN in terms of positive and negative values distinguishing whether or not the item can be put on hold.

This way, a library can determine if a damaged item is a lost cause and change it to a damaged status that can't be held.
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2023-07-01 14:52:51 UTC
I believe it would be really hard to deal with this change for upgrades as we cannot tell how libraries have used lost values (items, several system preferences, longoverdue cron, reports, etc). 
But admittedly adding consistency would be nice.
Comment 2 Christopher Brannon 2023-07-05 15:24:19 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #1)
> I believe it would be really hard to deal with this change for upgrades as
> we cannot tell how libraries have used lost values (items, several system
> preferences, longoverdue cron, reports, etc). 
> But admittedly adding consistency would be nice.

I agree it would probably be hard, but not impossible.  I would imagine a similar situation was faced with NOT_LOAN, assuming it didn't start out with this option.