Bug 27973 - Limit to currently available items should have an option to filter out notforloan statuses
Summary: Limit to currently available items should have an option to filter out notfor...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Searching (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
: 27244 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2021-03-17 15:30 UTC by Lucas Gass (lukeg)
Modified: 2024-07-15 16:17 UTC (History)
14 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 Lucas Gass (lukeg) 2021-03-17 15:30:35 UTC
Many libraries find it problematic that the 'Limit to currently available' does not filter out notforloan statuses (example: ordered).

It would be handy if there was a system preference that allowed librarians to choose which notforloan statuses could be filtered out. 

to recreate one potential problem:
-do an OPAC search that includes some items with a notforloan of -1 (ordered)
-click 'Limit to currently available items'
-the ORDERED items remain 

this can be frustrating for a patron who could reasonably assume that after clicking the 'Limit to currently available' filter they would be looking only at items that are currently available to them to checkout
Comment 1 Benjamin Daeuber 2022-08-04 15:45:52 UTC
I just want to give this bug a bump, since this in no way matches staff or patron expectations at the moment.

I also like the idea of a system preference, because it's possible libraries may want local, non circulating collections to appear in "available items".
Comment 2 Barbara Johnson 2022-11-03 14:41:13 UTC
++1 for this functionality.  Having the 'Limit to currently available' filter return results for items that are on order provides a very bad user experience.  Being able to limit your search to what you actually have a chance at checking out immediately is essential functionality.  It's like being told that a table at your favorite restaurant is available now only to find that the actual table is on order so you will have to wait 6 weeks for it to get delivered.
Comment 3 Sam Passey 2022-11-03 15:14:44 UTC
I agree that is is a huge customer service issue. Please give it some love!
Comment 4 George Williams (NEKLS) 2022-11-03 17:50:35 UTC
+1
Comment 5 Carolyn Hughesman 2022-11-04 15:18:57 UTC
+1 This is frustrating to our patrons as well.
Comment 6 Todd Goatley 2022-11-10 16:32:34 UTC
+1 Yes, this is being talked about more and more by libraries.
Comment 7 Katrin Fischer 2022-11-13 22:48:28 UTC
Which version have you been testing with?

I believe bug 25375 should have fixed this for 22.11 and 22.05

Although I still believe it's different for different type of libraries and would love if the behavior could be customized. :)
Comment 8 Andrew Fuerste-Henry 2022-12-08 14:26:06 UTC
*** Bug 27244 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 9 Susan 2022-12-21 15:47:55 UTC
I tried to limit by items available and was surprised to find withdrawn items appeared within results. I do not consider those to be available for loan or requesting so to be able to exclude such items or having the filter automatically exclude withdrawn/missing/on order would be great.
Comment 10 Christopher Brannon 2023-03-22 19:11:45 UTC
I am hoping this feature will get some much needed attention.  It has been unreliable for way too long.
Comment 11 SamSowanick 2023-11-21 20:06:41 UTC
Bumping and upvoting. As our staff are feeling this one.

Similar bugs stating that this issue is difficult because the indexer is only given data from the items table. (Bug 5463|Bug 7012)

The notforloan status is provided in the items table. Hoping this can be addressed easier than the others that are seeking this function to also exclude data from reserves and branchtransfer.
Comment 12 Mirjam Vantieghem 2024-06-04 09:27:01 UTC
+1