https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=35310
--- Comment #22 from Pedro Amorim <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Victor Grousset/tuxayo from comment #21) > Does the way old data was let in issues.renewals_count means that the > current strategy is to not bother with temporary inconsistency after > migration? Then, current patches here are in line with that. I would say so, I don't think tackling the temporary inconsistency is cost-effective, because the inconsistency only happens in the items page and the items page only considers current checkouts. After an upgrade it's only a matter of time until all current renewals exist in the checkout_renewals table. Patron circulation history shows everything. There may be some other things worth improving here, personally I don't think the string "«Note: 1 out of 2 renewals have been logged»" is a clear enough way of conveying to the staff user what is happening or has happened, i.e. a person who does not know the history behind these datatabase tables will likely not fully understand what that string is referring to (in my opinion anyway, I didn't and was thrown off by it, but that's me!). But I also don't have a better suggestion right now! (In reply to Victor Grousset/tuxayo from comment #21) > I see, because the old data isn't migrated due to missing date, it's left > here and all places might need to account for two sources of renewals. This is not my understanding of the situation, but I may be wrong. My understanding is that old data was not migrated due to missing datA, not date. Before the checkout_renewals table, renewals information just wasn't logged individually. -- 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/
