Bug 29358 - Allow local definition of staff client's 'View in OPAC' links
Summary: Allow local definition of staff client's 'View in OPAC' links
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Tools (show other bugs)
Version: master
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2021-10-28 20:52 UTC by Lucas Gass
Modified: 2022-10-19 19:27 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 Lucas Gass 2021-10-28 20:52:47 UTC
Not all users of Koha use the Koha OPAC as the public facing front end. We can define the baseURL of a different OPAC with OPACBaseURL but not the rest.

It would be nice if Koha had a system preference that told Koha how to build those thinks, with a {biblionumber} placeholder. That way you could tell it something like this:

wwww.example.com/TEST/{BIBNUMBER}
Comment 1 Lari Taskula 2022-10-19 19:27:07 UTC
+1

We've also ran into this issue with shared lists https://github.com/Koha-Community/Koha/blob/b2fdd8f745f77a52d00ffffdfea8dd60dc33f462/koha-tmpl/intranet-tmpl/prog/en/modules/virtualshelves/sendshelf.tt#L146

If we used a system preference to control these links, what would be the best format? YAML? Example

OPACLinks (default):

---
xslt_MARC21slim2intranetDetail_opac_view: "{{OPACBaseURL|raw}}/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber={{biblionumber}}"
virtualshelves_sendshelf: "{{OPACBaseURL|raw}}/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber={{BIBLIO_RESULT.biblionumber|html}}"


OPACLinks (customized)

---
xslt_MARC21slim2intranetDetail_opac_view: "https://another_frontend/record/{{biblionumber}}"
virtualshelves_sendshelf: "https://another_frontend/record/{{BIBLIO_RESULT.biblionumber|html}}"

There are probably plenty of such locations so we have to identify those. Shall we open a new Bug for each of them and consider this Bug omnibus?