Bug 27923 - Inventory tool should be able to skip lost items
Summary: Inventory tool should be able to skip lost items
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Tools (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2021-03-10 21:12 UTC by Andrew Fuerste-Henry
Modified: 2024-10-25 00:17 UTC (History)
2 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

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Andrew Fuerste-Henry 2021-03-10 21:12:17 UTC
In the inventory tool, the "Optional filters for inventory list or comparing barcodes" section allows one to filter results to only consider items with certain lost values. However, there isn't an option to only look at items with no lost status. We should have a "Skip lost items" checkbox, as we have "Skip items on loan" and "Skip items on hold awaiting pickup." If a library is reasonably sure that their lost items will not be on the shelf, they should have the option to just not interact with them in inventory.
Comment 1 Mathieu Saby 2024-04-16 12:58:13 UTC
+1
Comment 2 Phil Ringnalda 2024-09-20 19:42:13 UTC
Should we have a "Skip lost" checkbox, or should we have a "Not lost" checkbox in the filters section, like we have a "For loan" checkbox in the notforloan filters? Or should we have both, and if we do how will they interact?

I can easily picture a library using inventory as their "look for missing things" report, so they would want to include "Not lost" and "Missing" to have their report of the things that didn't get scanned include Missing, but not include Lost and paid for.

I have a harder time coming up with a reason why someone would ever want to include Withdrawn, but since it doesn't have a Not withdrawn checkbox, there's also currently no way to exclude them.

And I have a hard time justifying why Damaged is there at all. It has no behavior, so whether or not a thing is items.damaged, if it's not supposed to be on the shelf it has to have something else, notforloan or lost or withdrawn, to say so, doesn't it? Otherwise your things with damaged set to "In repair" would still show up in your holds queue with no sign that they were in repair, and nothing to stop you marking them missing when you didn't find them on the shelf.

Left to my own UI devices (never a good thing, I love complicated UI with hidden things), I'd say we should have checked by default and listed first "For loan" and "Not lost" and "Not withdrawn" and "Not damaged" with all the other damaged values also checked by default, and none of the other notforloan or lost or withdrawn values checked by default. I'm fighting the temptation to say that we should also have twisties to reveal the other hidden checkboxes, so most people don't even have to see and think about whether or not they want to include "Lost and paid for." But that would introduce the complication of having "Not withdrawn" and then "Any or no damaged".
Comment 3 Phil Ringnalda 2024-10-25 00:17:35 UTC
Ah, AllowHoldsOnDamagedItems exists, so it's possible to use it in a not supposed to be on the shelf way.