Bug 7256 - Circulation Log Wrong
Summary: Circulation Log Wrong
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 7241
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Circulation (show other bugs)
Version: master
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low major (vote)
Assignee: Kyle M Hall
QA Contact: Ian Walls
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-11-23 14:42 UTC by Nicole C. Engard
Modified: 2012-10-26 00:41 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Nicole C. Engard 2011-11-23 14:42:48 UTC
So all this began when I tried to renew the four items on patron P60047 's
record. Problem: I hadn't hit renew, I had accidentally hit check in (both
options look very similar, I need to remember to hit the "Renew All" button at
the bottom of the screen and ignore the options on the right side of the
screen). 

So, I thought, "Okay, well, I'll just look at the Circulation Log, and my
transactions will be in there. Then I can see the items I returned and re-check
them out to the patron." But when I looked through the Circulation Log, none of
the items were on there. What was really bizarre was nothing I had checked in
this morning, now sitting on our shelving cart and in our media drawer, was in
the Circulation Log. And I individually clicked on each item in the Circulation
Log and recognized none of it. Also: when I looked at each item in the
Circulation Log for "Last Borrower" none of them had p60047 on it, nor did any
of the items have any record of ever being checked out. I'm completely confused
and will have to rely on the honesty of the patron to tell us which four items
she has checked out so that we can re-check them out to her through Koha.


The problem is that the number being stored in the circulation logs is not the
item number (as the code believes it to be), but rather the biblionumber.  It's
been this way for a very long time, and surprisingly no one has noticed.
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2011-11-23 14:50:59 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 7241 ***