https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=34881
Emily Lamancusa <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |emily.lamancusa@montgomeryc | |ountymd.gov --- Comment #5 from Emily Lamancusa <[email protected]> --- The subquery in line 24 of the patch is missing its close parenthesis at the end - that's probably what's causing the error. I agree that it feels off to put the system preference revisions (and the not-for-loan AV revision for that matter) all inside of the IF statement that depends only on the Lost AV. Can we safely assume that either the whole dbrev has been run, or none of it has been run? If so, why not put everything inside the if block that's already there: 10 if( !TableExists( 'item_bundles' ) ) { If not, then shouldn't we check each thing separately? Uploading an alternative patch for how this could work... -- 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/
