https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18284
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #3) > I wish we flagged deleted rather than had deleted_* tables.. this sort of > thing would be far less fraught with dangers that way. I am just following the existing pattern, used twice already. Moreover the table already exists and we want to keep FK. Without 2 differents we could not keep the FK. > I would also do this at the DBIC level personally.. with a monkeypatch of > the standard delete call. With a critical or blocker I always try to provide as small fix as possible to avoid any integration problems. Without using DBIx::Class I avoid creating 2 new packages + provide tests (~100 lines minimum). (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #4) > Comment on attachment 61193 [details] [review] > New FIXME..? Yes? What's wrong with FIXME? I provide code that is not good, I highlight it in the codebase. > ::: C4/Biblio.pm > @@ +3361,4 @@ > > my $sth = $dbh->prepare("SELECT * FROM biblio WHERE biblionumber=?"); > > $sth->execute($biblionumber); > > > > + # FIXME There is a transaction in _koha_delete_biblio_metadata > > Why add the FIXME rather than adding the code to actually solve the problem? > > Nested transactions work well in DBIC whenever I've used them Yes of course, I use them in these tests and they pass. -- 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/
