Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Problem with Edit Items / Volumes per Bib function?
Hi Jennifer, I wonder if you are also running into a related bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1253732 From your original description, a new call number is being created, but your item isn't being transferred. If the Edit Items / Volumes per Bib is working the way it should, then the fact that a new Volume is being created should be invisible to the staff member making the edit. You shouldn't be ending up with empty call numbers unless there's something else going on. BTW, no one's confirmed this bug yet, so if it is what you're seeing, you can mark it as confirmed. Hope this helps, Michele -- Michele M. Morgan, Technical Assistant North of Boston Library Exchange, Danvers Massachusetts mmor...@noblenet.org On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Walz, Jennifer jlw...@asbury.edu wrote: All - Here is where I don't understand the current construct and wouldn't it make more sense to have the call number and the barcode be at the item level for each record? Like this: Title blah blah blah etc, author and owning library and so on. - 345.0998 B58a 1908987293 - 345.0998 B58a 1908987294 - 345.0998 B58a 1908987294 Why do the call numbers need to have their own level called volume? What does it add to the mix? In other words, what does this particular construct enable libraries to do specifically? If you had the call number at the same level of the barcode, you could STILL update either and not affect the owner or copy location (unless you wanted to). Let's say an owning library had 5 copies of a title, but wanted to put them in five different locations - each with a different call number. You could if you wanted, without creating and fiddling with volume level data. Why can't that level just be eliminated altogether? Just saying. I'm just not seeing the benefit of having the call number / volume level. Seems to complicate matters unnecessarily. If anyone can give me ANY help to fix about 300 records that have gotten deleted and then mysteriously not, I would be most grateful! Where is that pesky deleted indicator anyway?? I want to turn it off for these records. (my other pet peeve! Items should be GONE from the system entirely and not in a phantom zone!) Thanks! Jennifer -- Jennifer Walz, MLS - Head of Research Distance Services Kinlaw Library - Asbury University One Macklem Drive, Wilmore, KY 40390 859-858-3511 ext. 2269 jlw...@asbury.edu -Original Message- From: Open-ils-general [mailto: open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Lussier Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 4:29 PM To: open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Problem with Edit Items / Volumes per Bib function? Hi Jason, Yes, I understand the mindset behind the current behavior. If I were to look at tackling this bug/wishlist request, I think I would look at adding a prompt that appears when the user is updating a volume from the unified editor if there are other copies attached to the volume that aren't being edited at the time the update is being made. In many cases, I think the answer to the question is Yes, but I can see why you wouldn't want to change the call number label for all six copies if the intent was just to update the label for one. Kathy On 07/23/2015 04:22 PM, Jason Etheridge wrote: Should we expect for all copies on a volume to inherit a call number tweak if just a single copy was being edited as the entry point? An answer of No went into the mindset that built the current behavior. -- Kathy Lussier Project Coordinator Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative (508) 343-0128 kluss...@masslnc.org Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Problem with Edit Items / Volumes per Bib function?
Michelle, Sorry. That does not describe what we were trying to do, but it sounds to me as if the unified editor is a big boondoggle and you should never use it. We are not getting empty volumes left over – so I guess it does make a call number / item transfer, but then when you delete the now empty call number, it is leaving the record with a “deleted” flag on it somewhere. When in actual fact, the item is still there! Crazy stuff. We have stopped using the unified editor and now have to figure out how to fiddle with all the records that got the mysterious “deleted” flag when they are actually NOT deleted. Thanks! Jennifer -- Jennifer Walz, MLS - Head of ILS Madnesses Kinlaw Library - Asbury University One Macklem Drive, Wilmore, KY 40390 859-858-3511 ext. 2269 jlw...@asbury.edu From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Michele Morgan Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 4:35 PM To: Evergreen Discussion Group Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Problem with Edit Items / Volumes per Bib function? Hi Jennifer, I wonder if you are also running into a related bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1253732 From your original description, a new call number is being created, but your item isn't being transferred. If the Edit Items / Volumes per Bib is working the way it should, then the fact that a new Volume is being created should be invisible to the staff member making the edit. You shouldn't be ending up with empty call numbers unless there's something else going on. BTW, no one's confirmed this bug yet, so if it is what you're seeing, you can mark it as confirmed. Hope this helps, Michele -- Michele M. Morgan, Technical Assistant North of Boston Library Exchange, Danvers Massachusetts mmor...@noblenet.orgmailto:mmor...@noblenet.org On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Walz, Jennifer jlw...@asbury.edumailto:jlw...@asbury.edu wrote: All - Here is where I don't understand the current construct and wouldn't it make more sense to have the call number and the barcode be at the item level for each record? Like this: Title blah blah blah etc, author and owning library and so on. - 345.0998 B58a 1908987293 - 345.0998 B58a 1908987294 - 345.0998 B58a 1908987294 Why do the call numbers need to have their own level called volume? What does it add to the mix? In other words, what does this particular construct enable libraries to do specifically? If you had the call number at the same level of the barcode, you could STILL update either and not affect the owner or copy location (unless you wanted to). Let's say an owning library had 5 copies of a title, but wanted to put them in five different locations - each with a different call number. You could if you wanted, without creating and fiddling with volume level data. Why can't that level just be eliminated altogether? Just saying. I'm just not seeing the benefit of having the call number / volume level. Seems to complicate matters unnecessarily. If anyone can give me ANY help to fix about 300 records that have gotten deleted and then mysteriously not, I would be most grateful! Where is that pesky deleted indicator anyway?? I want to turn it off for these records. (my other pet peeve! Items should be GONE from the system entirely and not in a phantom zone!) Thanks! Jennifer -- Jennifer Walz, MLS - Head of Research Distance Services Kinlaw Library - Asbury University One Macklem Drive, Wilmore, KY 40390 859-858-3511 ext. 2269tel:859-858-3511%20ext.%202269 jlw...@asbury.edumailto:jlw...@asbury.edu -Original Message- From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.orgmailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Lussier Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 4:29 PM To: open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.orgmailto:open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Problem with Edit Items / Volumes per Bib function? Hi Jason, Yes, I understand the mindset behind the current behavior. If I were to look at tackling this bug/wishlist request, I think I would look at adding a prompt that appears when the user is updating a volume from the unified editor if there are other copies attached to the volume that aren't being edited at the time the update is being made. In many cases, I think the answer to the question is Yes, but I can see why you wouldn't want to change the call number label for all six copies if the intent was just to update the label for one. Kathy On 07/23/2015 04:22 PM, Jason Etheridge wrote: Should we expect for all copies on a volume to inherit a call number tweak if just a single copy was being edited as the entry point? An answer of No went into the mindset that built the current behavior. -- Kathy Lussier
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Apache leaking sockets/FD
Hi, On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Josh Stompro stomp...@exchange.larl.org wrote: Adding a close seems to have fixed the problem for me. [snip] Now when I load a bib detail record the number of orphaned sock connections doesn’t keep climbing. I’ll test some more and open a bug if it continues to look good. I've looked things over, agree with your analysis, and look forward to the bug and patch. Also, upon checking both Evergreen and OpenSRF's code, it looks like the added content client is the only place that was doing a Perl socket shutdown() without also doing a close(). Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Infrastructure and Added Services Manager Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
