This is a recurrence, but I can't find the original bug. So, on the patron messaging tab it says 'unknown' instead of 'item due'
This does not seem to be an issue with current code. Marking as works for me.
In some languages the sample file are still wrong. Sample files have Item_DUE instead of Item_Due, causing the message name to be shown as unknown.
Created attachment 6350 [details] screenshot, installation with German sample files
Created attachment 6352 [details] [review] Bug 6530: Item Due notice label displaying as 'unknown' Some of the translated sql files still had 'Item_DUE' instead of 'Item_Due' causing the staff interface to display 'unknown' instead of the correct description. To test: - Do a new installation, using German, French, Polish, Russian or Ukrainian sample files. - Actived EnhancedMessagingPreferences - Create a new patron category and check message descriptions display correctly http://bugs.koha-community.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6350
Created attachment 6492 [details] [review] Bug 6530: Item Due notice label displaying as 'unknown' Some of the translated sql files still had 'Item_DUE' instead of 'Item_Due' causing the staff interface to display 'unknown' instead of the correct description. To test: - Do a new installation, using German, French, Polish, Russian or Ukrainian sample files. - Actived EnhancedMessagingPreferences - Create a new patron category and check message descriptions display correctly Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chrisc@catalyst.net.nz>
QA comment: * clean code, nothing to say about what is provided * For libraries already installed with a wrong value, an updatedatabase is needed. I'we written it, and tested Patch and follow-up pushed
This patch does not apply cleanly to the 3.6.x branch. Please rebase over 3.6.x and attach a corrected patch to this bug report.
Paul, I am quite confused by the version number for the updatedatabase you did for this and about the numbers before since 3.06 release: 74 $DBversion = "3.06.02.001"; ? Shouldn't we count 3.07.00.XX in master?
(In reply to comment #8) > Paul, I am quite confused by the version number for the updatedatabase you did > for this and about the numbers before since 3.06 release: > > 74 $DBversion = "3.06.02.001"; ? > > Shouldn't we count 3.07.00.XX in master? Katrin, This bugfix will be available in 3.6.2, so it sounded logical to number it 3.06.02.001 I had a pm discussion with chris_n and chris_c about that, and it seems they have a different opinion. I think we should speak of this during our next IRC meeting (in 2 hours ) I've added the topic to our agenda