https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18958
Marcel de Rooy <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|BLOCKED |Failed QA --- Comment #48 from Marcel de Rooy <[email protected]> --- Just puzzled by this change. Since CheckReserves is such a vital routine. How is it possible that we just now need to add waiting and transit holds? Related to use of holds queue? Please note that _Findgroupreserve contains three queries. The first one is item level targeted. Why didnt you add the clause here? Since waiting and transit are item level. If no results, the second is run. Which should be "title level". But inconsistently it does not contain an itemnumber IS NULL clause. And that fact helps you now to add the W/T clause. Does not look very consistent to me. The first two runs are based on hold_fill_targets. If there are no results, the third query gets record and item level holds from the reserves table. My question here is: If we do not change the second query, the third one should find them too, since it does not contain a clause on found? Changing status for feedback. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://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/
