https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=41400
--- Comment #2 from Katrin Fischer <[email protected]> --- If we implement your change as suggested, it will require more complex and possibly confusing code and possibly more and more such changes over time. Having a new separate database field would allow all libraries to have the best of both worlds: - All features would work as expected that rely on biblioitems.itemtype being a valid itemtype (including holds behavior, article requests etc.) - It could probably solve your circulation rules issue. - It would allow libraries who rely on those features to use the new column and the features build on top of it, without having to choose one or the other. What I am missing in the bug report is the use case of having the different biblioitems.itemtype - like what do you achieve with it currently? What are the use cases? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ 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/
