https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=36101
Andrew Fuerste-Henry <andre...@dubcolib.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|Failed QA |In Discussion
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Fuerste-Henry <andre...@dubcolib.org> ---
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #7)
> (In reply to Lari Strand from comment #0)
> > Unless there's a good reason for this data loss, the itemnumber should be
> > preserved in old_reserves after deleting an item.
>
> Please explain why there is a good reason to do so. Keeping an itemnumber in
> this table that does no longer exist is bad practice.
The itemnumber in the reserves table may refer to an item in the items table or
may refer to an item in the deleteditems table. The [table]/deleted[table]
structure for items and bibs supports the fundamental idea that a library may
need to know about titles/items that were once in their collection but are not
any longer. Even after an item has been removed from the collection, it's still
useful to know which holds and checkouts involved that item.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
_______________________________________________
Koha-bugs mailing list
Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org
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/
