Hi, All:

Our consortium upgraded to the web client, 3.0.8, over Memorial Day weekend.

Since then we have had 3 reports, (all within the last few weeks), of a
problem that I cannot seem to pin down/replicate.

I can open a Launchpad bug with these details, as well, but I first wanted
to try the list to see if anyone else has seen this or had any insight
before filing.

First a little background since the issue is related to billing,
specifically the LOST status, and I know there is variation in how this
status is used. We use LOST to represent an item that was either a) marked
"lost (by patron)", or b) has been overdue for 28 days or more. In both
cases, when an item becomes lost, the item price is billed and a lost item
block is placed on the patron record.

Normally when a lost item is paid, the following happens:

   - The balance owed on the bill is reduced to 0, and the bill is moved to
   the History tab.
   - The bill is updated with a transaction finish time of the last payment.
   - The item moves to status Lost & Paid.
   - The item no longer appears attached to the patron's account.
   - The lost item block is lifted from the account.

However, on rare occasions in the web client, we are seeing something
different. In these instances, when a lost item is paid, the following

   - The balance owed on the bill is reduced to 0, and the bill is moved to
   the History tab as expected.
   - The bill is NOT updated with a transaction finish time, (the field is
   - The item continues to stay in status Lost.
   - The item continues to appear in the patron's Items Out list.
   - The lost item block stays on the patron's account.

I have tried and tried again to duplicate this, but I have not been
(un)successful, though I know there is truth to these reports because I
have seen the aftermath, (i.e. item bill fully paid but still on

The items do not seem share common histories, (i.e. one was marked lost
manually, the others organically, one of the transactions was renewed 2
times, the others no renewals, one of the items was deleted, the others not
deleted). The only commonality I've found is that in each report, the bill
was part of a larger group of bills paid. In the most recent report, 5+
billed items were paid for with the same payment; all but one updated

However, I have tested this on my side with a variety of cases, (all lost,
mixed billing types, etc), and every single time the payment/bill is
processed correctly, so at that point, batch bill pay enters into the
causation vs correlation debate in relation to this issue.

So, anyone else seeing something similar? Should I just go straight to
filing a bug report?

Thanks in advance,

John Amundson

John Amundson | Library Applications Associate III | CW MARS

jamund...@cwmars.org | 508-755-3323 x322 <%28508%29%20755-3323>


Reply via email to