http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14694
--- Comment #20 from Kyle M Hall <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #18) > (In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #17) > > > 6 vs 5 > > > > That is a purposeful change. The issue was that the logic of the unit test > > was off by one. The assumption was that the number of holds must greater > > than or equal to, but as per the code and sys pref definition, the number of > > holds must be simply greater than. Thus adding one more hold fixes all the > > tests. > > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #14) > > > + if ( $holds->count() <= $threshold ) { > > > > And an inclusive here. > > So should this be < also? No, that is the correct comparison. If you look at the descritions for the two high holds behavior options you will see the static ( original ) version requires a < comparison, and the new dynamic versions needs <=. > > ::: Koha/Biblio.pm > > @@ +41,5 @@ > > > +or list of Koha::Item objects in list context. > > > + > > > +=cut > > > + > > > +sub items { > > > > Wouldn't be better to use a DBIx::Class relation? > > Something like bug 14819. No, we want to return a Koha::Object object, not a DBIC object. It would be most confusing if a Koha::Object method were to return a DBIC object instead of a Koha Object. > > What about these 2 comments? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
