https://schema.koha-community.org/24_05/tables/erm_agreements.html erm_agreements.license_info is limited to 80 characters. Users would like to be able to store more information here. erm_agreement_licenses.notes and erm_agreement_periods.notes are both MEDIUMTEXT fields allowing up to 16777215 characters.
Created attachment 174946 [details] [review] Bug 38522: Increase erm_agreements.license_info length to test: 1- try to save an agreement with 81+ characters in License Info 2- it does not save 3- apply patch, updatedatabase 4- repeat 1, it works!
Created attachment 174947 [details] [review] Bug 38522: update kohastructure.sql
Created attachment 174948 [details] [review] Bug 38522: update kohastructure.sql Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
Created attachment 174949 [details] [review] Bug 38522: Increase erm_agreements.license_info length to test: 1- try to save an agreement with 81+ characters in License Info 2- it does not save 3- apply patch, updatedatabase 4- repeat 1, it works! Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
Created attachment 174950 [details] [review] Bug 38522: update kohastructure.sql Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
Database update fails: ERROR: {UNKNOWN}: Undefined subroutine &C4::Installer::say_success called at /kohadevbox/koha/installer/data/mysql/atomicupdate/bug_35145_order_patron_attributes.pl line 21. at /kohadevbox/koha/C4/Installer.pm line 743
(In reply to Lucas Gass (lukeg) from comment #6) > Database update fails: > > ERROR: {UNKNOWN}: Undefined subroutine &C4::Installer::say_success called > at > /kohadevbox/koha/installer/data/mysql/atomicupdate/ > bug_35145_order_patron_attributes.pl line 21. at > /kohadevbox/koha/C4/Installer.pm line 743 Sorry, commented on the wrong bug. This database update is great.
Hi Andrew, please make sure to use the new skeleton.pl as a base for your atomic update files. You should use "say_success" for example.
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #8) > Hi Andrew, please make sure to use the new skeleton.pl as a base for your > atomic update files. You should use "say_success" for example. Hm, I just realized the file needs some more updating for the examples :)
Pushed for 25.05! Well done everyone, thank you!
Koha_Main_MariaDB_update/10 is failing because of this. 19:22:12 koha_1 | --- a/Koha/Schema/Result/ErmAgreement.pm 19:22:12 koha_1 | +++ b/Koha/Schema/Result/ErmAgreement.pm 19:22:12 koha_1 | @@ -88,11 +88,8 @@ priority of the renewal 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:12 koha_1 | =head2 license_info 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:12 koha_1 | - data_type: 'varchar' 19:22:12 koha_1 | + data_type: 'mediumtext' 19:22:12 koha_1 | is_nullable: 1 19:22:12 koha_1 | - size: 80 19:22:12 koha_1 | - 19:22:12 koha_1 | -info about the license 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:12 koha_1 | =cut 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:12 koha_1 | @@ -114,7 +111,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->add_columns( 19:22:12 koha_1 | "renewal_priority", 19:22:12 koha_1 | { data_type => "varchar", is_nullable => 1, size => 80 }, 19:22:12 koha_1 | "license_info", 19:22:12 koha_1 | - { data_type => "varchar", is_nullable => 1, size => 80 }, 19:22:12 koha_1 | + { data_type => "mediumtext", is_nullable => 1 }, 19:22:12 koha_1 | ); 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:12 koha_1 | =head1 PRIMARY KEY 19:22:12 koha_1 | @@ -267,8 +264,8 @@ Composing rels: L</erm_eholdings_packages_agreements> -> package 19:22:12 koha_1 | __PACKAGE__->many_to_many("packages", "erm_eholdings_packages_agreements", "package"); 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:12 koha_1 | -# Created by DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader v0.07049 @ 2022-11-11 11:52:09 19:22:12 koha_1 | -# DO NOT MODIFY THIS OR ANYTHING ABOVE! md5sum:N93LnvdKirtuV6BSrTGzVg 19:22:12 koha_1 | +# Created by DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader v0.07051 @ 2024-12-03 18:22:02 19:22:12 koha_1 | +# DO NOT MODIFY THIS OR ANYTHING ABOVE! md5sum:08W7MMLmEW7KvG1GAlLM2w 19:22:12 koha_1 | 19:22:13 koha_1 | __PACKAGE__->has_many( 19:22:13 koha_1 | "user_roles", 19:22:26 koha_1 | ERROR - There is a diff in DBIC schema files This is because the ALTER statement is missing the COMMENT part.
Created attachment 175327 [details] [review] Bug 38522: followup to preserve comment in sql structure This patch contains a new database update that corrects the missing comment in the schema structure.
I've included a new database update that includes that comment. I wasn't sure if that should be handled here as a followup or go on a new bug. I'm happy to file one as desired. Thanks!
Hi Andrew, as we just started and noone should have run your database update yet, I think we can just adjust the db_rev directly. Please also write "(follow-up)" - the QA tools will complain otherwise :)
Created attachment 175332 [details] [review] Bug 38522: (follow-up) edit dbrev in preserve comment
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #14) > Hi Andrew, as we just started and noone should have run your database update > yet, I think we can just adjust the db_rev directly. > Please also write "(follow-up)" - the QA tools will complain otherwise :) Ok, new follow-up patch attached that just edits the dbrev. I obsoleted the new database update I attached earlier today. Thanks, all!
Nice work everyone! Pushed to 24.11.x for 24.11.01
Follow-up pushed to main. Fixed "DEFUALT" and amended the patch before pushing.
Backported to 24.05.x for 24.05.06
Pushed to 23.11.x for 23.11.11