https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38007
--- Comment #4 from Katrin Fischer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Esther Melander from comment #3) > Thank you Katrin with explaining how the functionality has developed. The > workflow described indicates the intent is for the framework to change to > default when the record item is received? In this scenario, the framework is > saved as default when the record is created. In my opinion there are 2 major problems to solve if we were to store in ACQ framework from beginning: 1) Data loss: Any field not defined in the ACQ framework will get deleted whenever the record is edited/touched manually or by script. And the ACQ framework Koha is delivered with is very minimal in terms of fields, because so far it's only used as a way to determine how the forms in the acquisition module will look like (items and "order form new" with UseACQFrameworkForBiblioRecords enabled). 2) Item forms: We also really like the way it allows to have different forms for items when ordering and on receive. Forcing libraries to change the framework manually on receive would add a ton of extra clicks and also require cataloguing permissions where now "item edit" is enough. My goal is not to block any change, but I feel it needs some more thought to make sure we don't break existing workflows. If identifying those records is the major issue: Could we use LDR pos. 17 to indicate an incomplete record instead of the framework? Or something else? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. 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/
