https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=36182
Pedro Amorim <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|Sandbox | --- Comment #10 from Pedro Amorim <[email protected]> --- Hi guys I've left the original patch as 23.11 for backport, re-tested, works as intended. Although this is a small enhancement and not a bugfix, would be great to have this backported if possible as it'd be one less bug that we'd have to backport manually to our customers. Submitted new patch based on master on top of bug 33568. (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #3) > [comment not intended as a blocker] > > Hi Pedro, > > I wonder if it would make sense to resolve the ID to the vendor's name. > Could be a separate bug. > > To explain: > Libraries not using the acq module like to write a vendor name in the field > in the cataloguing editor as there is no plugin or similar to search for a > vendor to create a proper link (there is a bug for that somewhere...) > For libraries using the acq module, Koha adds the booksellerid of the vendor > automatically in the acquisition process. > Some libraries will have a mix of both (retro-cataloguing, migrated data, > donations, etc.) > > If we have the ID, we won't resolve to the vendor name with this patch and > there is no easy way for the library to figure out the actual vendor. We > neither allow searching by booksellerid, nor do we display the ID on the > vendor's detail page. You can only see it in the URL. > > I see that the items tab in the staff interface (moredetails.pl) uses this > code: > > if ($item_info->{'basketno'}){ > my $basket = GetBasket($item_info->{'basketno'}); > my $bookseller = Koha::Acquisition::Booksellers->find( > $basket->{booksellerid} ); > $item_info->{'vendor'} = $bookseller->name; > } > > So if an order for the item exists, it gets resolved to the name, otherwise > it remains as is. > > Also something that could probably be improved on. But re-using the logic > would give us a consistent display/behavior between items tab and holdings > table. Would it be okay if this is handled in a different bug as further enhancement with a detailed test plan? I'm still having a hard time reproducing this as I don't think I'm experienced enough in acquisitions to get this use-case going. Thanks. -- 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/
