The sample data has patrons with borrowernumbers 51 and 19. Neither is found when you select borrowernumber and starts with in the search filters. I am sure this was a regression on one point, because I have used this feature before.
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #0) > The sample data has patrons with borrowernumbers 51 and 19. Neither is found > when you select borrowernumber and starts with in the search filters. I can reproduce this on the current master, too. > I am sure this was a regression on one point, because I have used this > feature before. The relevant commit is a9f8db17fe from Bug 34092 ("Move search-patron.inc logic into buildPatronSearchQuery"). See also Bug 34067.
Created attachment 153441 [details] [review] 34256: Fix regression from 34092 It appears search_fields variable got lost somewhere in my own rebases. search_fields variable was not being considered as it should, in the function. I think this patch fixes it.
Created attachment 153448 [details] [review] Bug 34256: Fix regression from 34092 It appears search_fields variable got lost somewhere in my own rebases. search_fields variable was not being considered as it should, in the function. I think this patch fixes it. This showed in the borrowernumer no longer being searchable: * Use search filters in patron search * Set 'Search field' to borrowernumber * Search for 19 (Henry) or 41 (koha) in sample data * No results :( * Apply patch * Search leads to the patron record again Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de>
I'll treat this as a QA follow-up for bug 34092.
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #4) > I'll treat this as a QA follow-up for bug 34092. Thanks Katrin, that makes sense, it's exactly what this is! And thanks for spotting this bug.
Pushed to master for 23.11. Nice work everyone, thanks!
Thanks for all the hard work! Pushed to 23.05.x for the next release
Nice work everyone! Pushed to oldstable for 22.11.x