https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22018
Andrew Isherwood <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe |andrew.isherwood@ptfs-europ |.com |e.com --- Comment #9 from Andrew Isherwood <[email protected]> --- Hi Katrin Thanks for your thoughts, very useful, it's interesting to have some of the historical context. > ... if the intention of using auto renewals and holds (instead of just having > looong loan periods) > is that holds should have the effect of people having to return items, > renewing "early" seems > like going against that? I feel a bit like you can't have both ... I think the idea is that it gives the ability for the patron to not have to return an item due to a hold when they are physically unable to do so due to being away. A (probably) naïve approach would be just for us to add a syspref that, if enabled, ignores the "norenewalbefore" restriction checks in C4::CanBookBeRenewed. I notice that in Bug 25758 Nick has added flag that is passed to C4::CanBookBeRenewed indicating if it is being called from the autorenew cron script, so that would negate the need for us to split norenewalbefore into two. However, despite the approach that is taken, I am still unable to see how we can allow patrons to renew items early without re-introducing the ability for them to artificially increase their loan periods when RenewalPeriodBase is set to date_due. Needs more thought I think! -- 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/
