https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24254
--- Comment #42 from Katrin Fischer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #41) > (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #40) > > Right.. I think this is pretty solid now.. Passing QA. > > > > However, it does make me ask the question as to why our Koha::Item->store > > routine and cataloguing/additem.pl both do a >=/ge check on itemlost. I > > think you've discussed and proved to me that the check on itemlost is purely > > boolean.. false (0/undef) vs defined/not zero... but I can't help but have a > > nagging feeling the negatives used to be meaningful in some dim and distant > > past. > > Maybe you mixed up with notforloan? (negative values are for "ordered") I think at the moment only the negatives for notforloan and restricted have some visible effect. We could check how the hidelostitems system preference works now? -- 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/
