From 23059: "One thing that would be nice to see as a follow-up would be the ability for libraries that have in-processing and in-transit statuses to be able to separate those out from "Placed". But that requires extra processing to determine whether those statuses are relevant to the library, so it's a bit out of scope for this bug, and doesn't need to block the alignment of the report with the universally-relevant hold statuses." How do we define those 'universally-relevant hold statuses' exactly?
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #0) > From 23059: > > "One thing that would be nice to see as a follow-up would be the ability for > libraries that have in-processing and in-transit statuses to be able to > separate those out from "Placed". But that requires extra processing to > determine whether those statuses are relevant to the library, so it's a bit > out of scope for this bug, and doesn't need to block the alignment of the > report with the universally-relevant hold statuses." > > How do we define those 'universally-relevant hold statuses' exactly? I was just trying to say that "in-transit" and "in-processing" would be a nice follow up, but don't need to be a blocker on 23059. The four statuses your patch includes (Cancelled, Filled, Waiting, and Placed) are applicable to all libraries that use holds, and are a major improvement on what was there before, so I felt that patch should go forward as-is.