Bug 39990 - Expand library group feature 'Is local hold' group to subgroups for local holds priority
Summary: Expand library group feature 'Is local hold' group to subgroups for local hol...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Hold requests (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 20747
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2025-05-23 21:28 UTC by Lisette Scheer
Modified: 2025-05-27 12:53 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
GIT URL:
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 Lisette Scheer 2025-05-23 21:28:18 UTC
Library groups can have subgroups. For features like localholdspriority it would be helpful to be able to nest groups in large systems.

Example:

System has the following groups

Group 1
   Subgroup 1
     Library 1
     Library 2
     Library 3
     Library 4
   Subgroup 2
     Library 5
     Library 6
     Library 7
     Library 8
Group 2
   Subgroup 3
     Library 9
     Library 10
     Library 11
     Library 12
   Subgroup 4
     Library 13
     Library 14
     Library 15
     Library 16

Each subgroup has an internal courier
Each group shares a courier
There's a courier in between Group 1 and Group 2
There's a courier that goes to the rest of the 50 branch system

This library would like to be able to fill the following order: 
Library
subgroup Group
Overall Group
Full system
Rest of system
Comment 1 trevor.diamond 2025-05-27 12:53:29 UTC
My cooperative of 42 libraries would also appreciate the ability to nest hold groups, similar to the initial example.  Rather than think of it in terms of group and subgroup (which implies just two levels), I would prefer a way where we can "order" the groups in terms of nesting. 

Or would it make more sense to rank the various groups to which a library belongs in terms of ascending size.  So the smallest group gets the first considerations, and continuing up in size until the request is filled or every library in the system is eligible. 

If the ranking is automatically applied through this kind of logic, there's a lower hurdle to using the feature, but if there are two groups of a similar size, it would be random which is considered "first".  You could have more control of the order if there was additional group feature of "priority" like we see for item groups, which lets you control the order they appear.