http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8369
Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|In Discussion |ASSIGNED --- Comment #27 from Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Galen Charlton from comment #26) > My general opinion of the change as a whole: I would hate to lose the > foreign key constraints, the change doesn't seem to have any user-visible > benefit, and I don't see that the goal of reducing the number of tables > involved is worth the risk of regressions. The goal of this patch is not to offer something to the final user. With this approach, the code and sql queries in the smart-rules script are more readable and cleaner. It is enough for me to provide a patch. > I'm not fond of the use of '*' in issuing rules, either -- I'd rather that > NULL be usable to signal "don't care/matches any" and that brancode, > itemtype, and categorycode be FKs -- but composite UKs don't enforce > uniqueness if one of the values is NULL. We could dispense with the > composite PK on issuingrules, perhaps, but then would have to write more > code to ensure that duplicate rows couldn't slip in. I will try to propose a followup. Thanks for your feedback! -- 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/
