https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=23838
--- Comment #50 from Katrin Fischer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #49) > Assuming I'm reading this right, I think an minimal version 2 option would > be the best route to goal.. a simple 'renewals' table with just 'issue_id' > and 'timestamp' required really.. all other details can still come from the > issues table directly... or are there other details we would want to record > like 'type' to denote autorenewals vs manual ones, and interface to denote a > staff client renewal vs an online/opac renewal?... Either way, I think we > should record the minimum in the 'renewals' table and rely on the issues > table link to fill out the rest of the details we may need. In statistics or action_logs (sorry, I didn't check that) we also record: - where the renewal has taken place (branch) - what type of renewal it was (opac, staff, etc.) - for this bug: who did the renewal - in the future: seen or unseen? A lot of this information we have already, but the reliable link (issue_id) is missing. I am still wondering if not adding the issue_id to the statistics/action_logs tables would be a good way to handle this as otherwise we do end up with a lot of duplicate data that then has to be anonymized etc. again. Also: do we need an old_renewals then as well? (what happens when the items are returned? we want to keep the history) -- 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/
