http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8798
--- Comment #77 from Galen Charlton <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #75) > (In reply to comment #74) > > My preference is that that every effort should be made when introducing a > > DBIC-based method to remove the C4 function(s) that it supersedes; having > > both a Koha::* method and a C4::* method for the same thing only invites > > trouble in the form of divergent business logic. Developing new features > > incrementally can help with that. > > I have no irons in this fire, but if the C4 functions can be retained as > transitional shims rather than simply deleting them, that might reduce the > amount of code that required refactoring, and maintain the usefulness of > existing unit tests. That's a good point. Certainly one could envision a C4 method being rewritten to invoke a bunch of DBIC-based code, without the unit test changing at all. But the emphasis would be on such things being *transitional*. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://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/
