https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14237
Kyle M Hall <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #8 from Kyle M Hall <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #7) > I am still really torn about what the best approach here would be :( > > Add a bilbionumber column to course_items > > + All contents of a course reserve are in one table > - We will only be using ci_id, biblionumber, and timestamp columns, other > columns won't be used as they are all item specific > > Add a new table, course_records or similar > > - Need to check 2 tables to get all contents > + Table is more specific, ci_id, biblionumber and timestamp will be enough > > ? We do something similar in the reserves table already (item and record > level holds are distinguised by a filled itemnumber column). But not sure if > that is a good pattern to follow. Also all other columns are used for both, > so it seems to make mor sense there. > > What I am not sure is about what is better for database constraints and such? > If a record is deleted, I think we'd want to delete it from the table by > constraint as well. I'm fine with either solution. Using the existing table does make some sense, but would require rewriting a decent amount of the existing code. A separate table would be a cleaner add-on, as existing code wouldn't need to be touched much. In either case, ON DELETE CASCADE fk constraints should definitely be implemented. -- 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/
