https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=29074
Emily Lamancusa (emlam) <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |emily.lamancusa@montgomeryc | |ountymd.gov --- Comment #20 from Emily Lamancusa (emlam) <[email protected]> --- I'm inclined to agree with Katrin for maintainability purposes. If we need to debug or change this behavior for default expiration dates later, it's going to be easier to find the appropriate code in the _set_default_expirationdate method, rather than needing to trace the code to find it in the store method. _set_default_expirationdate is also only three lines of code - checking two sysprefs and then setting the new expiration date - so we don't save much by avoiding the function call. That said, since the change is in the pm file and covered by tests either way, I don't think it's particularly higher-risk to keep the patch as-is if there's more support/reason for doing it that way. (But if the current patch is kept, since it touches both branches of an if/else, the tests should test both cases, also.) -- 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/
