https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22043
--- Comment #5 from Colin Campbell <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #4) > Still waiting on feedback. Can we get this moving forward if we don't hear > back by the end of the week? I can move the functionality behind a server > parameter if necessary, but I as far as I can tell we are violating the > standard with our current behavior. > > (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #3) > > QA Comment: > > > > - $self->alert(!$return); > > > > Although this seems to be okay, I am not fully sure about it. Do we overlook > > some codes? Or will this present a problem if we add a code but forgot to > > update SIP? > > @Colin: What is your opinion about this one ? > > > > Temporary parking into FQA for feedback. No it doesnt violate the standard, the link between there being a message and the alert is a convention that the original code adopted. Similarly the assumption that CV must be present, CV was not part of the original spec, and will be ignored by some clients. Unfortunately its become more complex as since then we've added/suppressed various messages in the circ routines, and informational messages have been added. That said I suspect nowhere is reliant on the alert flag's current behaviour. -- 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/
