On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Jason Etheridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sounds like a good possibility. I just wonder how (or if) you could tease >> apart transactions that happened after the merger, particularly if there is >> more than one active card attached to the record, and the transactions >> happened after retrieving the user by name or other access point so you >> don't know for sure which card to attach the new transactions to. > > Hrmm, I'd say throw transactions on the card that was used to retrieve > the patron. However, if the patron was retrieved by a different > means, it'd be a bit klunky/inelegant to ask staff which card is being > used for that session. We could do that or just default to a > random/arbitrary active card. Still a better situation than trying to > separate post-merge transactions into two different accounts without > cards being involved. Or maybe we could put the circs-in-question in > some sort of limbo (a neutral account grouped to both patrons?) until > one the patrons confirm who they belong to.
Sounds like another use for actor.usr.card. ;) -- Mike Rylander | VP, Research and Design | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
