Time Nick Message 13:26 owen Happy New Year, #koha 13:26 paul happy new year owen ! 13:39 kados g'morning all 13:39 owen Hi kados 13:39 kados happy new year too ! -) 13:40 kados paul: I've committed myself to a date for 3.0 Alpha 13:40 paul happy new year to you & your beloved ppl kados. 13:40 kados paul: as I'm sure you noticed :-) 13:40 paul yes, i've seen the mail. 13:40 kados paul: thx, you too! 13:41 paul kados : why do you plan to call it "alpha" ? for me, an alpha software is unusuable & unstable. which is not the case atm 13:41 kados paul: also, you should know that the patches you send with the zip wouldn't apply ... because of the order in which they were applied 13:41 kados paul: because it is unusable and unstable :-) 13:42 paul strange, I just rebase a few minuts ago, without any problem. will send them again. 13:42 paul we definetly disagree here kados, as we are deploying it (and liblime too if I don't mind) 13:42 kados paul: I know we disagree on this topic, but the curent state of 3.0 is not up to a high enough quality to be considered stable ... and it's not at all been tested by libraries 13:43 paul for me it's not ready for a officially stable release, but there is a diff between an alpha and what we have atm. 13:43 kados yep, but I give us a month to work on a beta ... 13:44 kados so the beta will be released hopefully on Feb 1 13:44 kados and then hopefully the stable will be ready by Mar 1 13:44 paul you won't change my mind. And i'm afraid I won't change your... 13:45 paul do you plan to do changes in DB and/or in API ? 13:45 kados one minor change that I know of in the DB, just change the default value on some item status fields 13:47 paul if you can promise you won't do any changes to API or database structure (unless a really blocking problem occurs, of course), then I think we could be happy with the "alpha" release. 13:47 paul as we won't consider it as alpha, and deploy it to more customers in the next weeks (something like 4 or 5 libraries in the immediate queue) 13:48 kados the list of things I expect to change between alpha->beta are listed in the email 13:49 paul yes, and i have questions about 2 or 3 of the topics, i'll ask on koha-devel, as I think everybody will be interested by the answer 13:49 kados *nod* 13:49 hdl happy new year too all. 13:49 kados welcome back hdl! 13:50 hdl kados: you had a problem with a commit on NZsearch. 13:50 kados hdl: currently NZsearch doesn't work in the advsearch template ... 13:50 hdl Can you detail ? 13:51 kados hdl: and there was a patch but it touched buildQuery, which should not be done as it builds 100% correct CCL 13:51 kados sure ... just a sec 13:55 paul kados : do you want that I send you the patches immediatly ? (which mailbox ?) 13:56 kados paul: the patches one is OK 13:57 paul done 13:59 paul kados : could you avoid reindenting & fixing something in the same commit ? It's very hard to review when both things are mixed. 14:00 kados paul: yes, sorry, I will do reindent first, then fix :-) 14:00 paul thx 14:00 hdl you can avoid having diffs on indentation with git config. 14:01 hdl if i donot mind. 14:02 hdl ftp://209.172.63.197/pub/mirrors/kernel.org/software/scm/git/docs/v1.5.1.5/git-diff.html 14:03 hdl http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-format-patch.html 14:03 hdl look for ignore space 14:03 paul does it manage tab => space changes ? (as usually it's that kind of changes) 14:04 hdl -b -w 14:05 paul I know, and I do the same, but I used to use tabs, so there are zillions of tabs remaining. 14:05 paul maybe we should do a big replace of all tabs by 4 spaces & 1 huge commit, and that's done... 14:20 gmcharlt good morning #koha 14:20 paul happy new year gmcharlt ! 14:21 gmcharlt happy new year paul :) 14:23 paul gmcharlt: about your answer on koha-devel and just to be sure... 14:23 gmcharlt paul: ok 14:23 paul you won't use hardcoded things to map items.* fields and marcxml tags/subfields 14:24 paul (as we have different mappings for unimarc) 14:24 gmcharlt paul: no, everything's going through the MARC frameworks 14:24 paul (and at least 2 possible mappings in UNIMARc : recommandation 995, which is the most widely used, and SUDOC, which is used in univerities) 14:24 paul ok, thanks 15:45 gmcharlt paul: about? 15:45 paul yes ? 15:45 gmcharlt paul: do any of the French libraries use the bulkedit from catalogue search results feature? 15:46 gmcharlt it currently has two issues -- first, I'm not sure it it actually gets activated at all ATM 15:46 paul (more boring because I won that RFP 2 months ago, but another vendor said he would sue the library if she didn't cancel the decision & re-write an RFP) 15:46 gmcharlt secondly, it allows editing of item info with the MARC without updating the items table 15:47 gmcharlt (sorry about the RFP woes; RFP--) 15:47 paul (of course, the library noticed she made something wrong in the previous RFP, but don't intend to change it's choice...) 15:47 paul gmcharlt: and you don't know what it means in france !!! 15:47 gmcharlt (but the forms must be obeyed, alas) 15:47 paul gmcharlt: you should ask hdl about the bulkedit feature, as he wrote it 15:48 gmcharlt paul: what do you mean? we have RFPs (requests for proposal) in the US too :) 15:48 gmcharlt hdl: about? 15:48 paul yes, but you never answered a french rfp (note that I only answered NPL rfp 5 years ago, so maybe my experience is not enough to compare us & france) 15:49 hdl yes 15:49 gmcharlt paul: yeah, true, I've never seen a French one -- how bad are they? 15:49 hdl gmcharlt: I am there. 15:49 gmcharlt hdl: did you see my question about the bulkedit feature? 15:49 hdl yes. 15:49 hdl bulkedit is still not stable enough for production. 15:50 gmcharlt hdl: that's what I thought 15:50 hdl I think that it doesnot use ModItem. 15:50 hdl as far as holding information is modified. 15:50 gmcharlt hdl: mind if I modify it a bit so that it isn't allowed to touch the item tag (i.e., 995/952/whatever is in the framework?) 15:50 paul (this one is 5 documents, for a total of 40 pages, and they request an answer on 3 of them, + 3 legal papers (called DC4, DC5 and DC7), that have to be provided for every RFP) 15:51 gmcharlt (paul: icky. although I've seen a few 100+-page RFPs, mostly from very large library systems in US) 15:51 hdl Can't you modify it to use ModItem if change occur in holding tag ? 15:52 paul (gm : this is a very small library 10 branches, 20 000 items total) 15:52 gmcharlt hdl: could, but I think a separate bulkitem feature would be better at some point, since it requires care to not allow batch editing of circ-related fields such as loan statuses and the like 15:53 hdl you can do what you said then 15:54 gmcharlt hdl: OK, thanks 16:05 owen kados, can I ask about Bug 1704? 16:07 kados sure 16:08 kados AutomaticItemReturn is a confusing syspref unfortunately 16:08 kados it could mean two things: 16:08 kados 1. items seek to return to their home branch 16:09 kados scratch that ... 16:09 kados I think what we decided, is that if it's ON, the system will prompt the staff to return the item to the homebranch, and will 'check in' the item, and initiate a transfer (something NPL hasn't ever used) 16:10 kados the transfer will be initiated when the staff clicks OK 16:10 kados otherwise the item is just returned 16:10 kados owen: does that make sense? 16:11 owen And if AutomaticItemReturn is off, it should display a message but not ask for confirmation? 16:12 kados yea, IIRC 16:13 kados if it's OFF it means that the library group doesn't care where the item is :-) 16:13 kados difficul to imagie when that would be 16:13 kados maybe paul or hdl can clarify 16:14 hdl paul : it is SANWP feature?. 16:14 owen Well, NPL wouldn't necessarily want to initiate a transfer for every return, and they certainly don't want to click 'confirm' for every return from a different branch 16:15 paul yes, it's a san-op feature iirc. 16:15 paul but I think AutomaticItemReturn=OFF was the previous behaviour. 16:15 paul and sanop added =ON 16:16 paul (maybe i'm wrong & miss something) 16:16 kados we really need to have two sysprefs, one to determine whether to initiate a transfer, and one to say whether to have a dialog about it 16:16 kados paul: yes, but sanop's code for ON didn't work :-) 16:16 paul nobody from sanop on #koha-fr atm, should still be on vacation 16:16 kados owen: I think NPL wants transfers 16:17 owen Can you define "transfer" ? 16:17 kados yea, a transfer is basically a way to keep track of items that are in transit from Library A to Library B 16:17 kados so the item was returned to Athens, but where is it now? 16:18 kados without the transfers table, we hasically have to compare the homebranch to the holdingbranch and guess that if they are different, the item is in transit 16:18 kados the transfers table makes that explicit 16:18 kados and you can run reports on it, etc. 16:18 owen Does the transfers table now handle hold transfers too? 16:19 kados I don't think so, but please file that as a request on bugzilla 16:19 kados actually, it could 16:19 kados in fact, I'm sure that's the intent of it in the first place 16:20 kados rather than 'returning' the item, you'd set up a transfer 16:20 kados it'd be worth testing that 16:21 owen So if I check in something at my branch that belongs at another branch, I'm really creating two transactions: first a return, then a transfer? 16:23 kados if you click OK, yes 16:23 kados otherwise it's just a checkin 17:30 nicomo who #koha 18:53 owen Should an item show as "available" if it's not for loan? 18:53 owen I guess there's some ambiguity as to whether "available" means "can check out" or "is on the shelf" 19:02 kados owen: I originally had it as yes, but paul changed it 19:02 kados yea, what does available mean exactly :-) 19:02 kados reference materials should be listed as available, if they're not lost, right? 19:02 kados paul: any thoughts on that? 19:03 owen kados: the reference example is what I was thinking of too. 19:03 chris available here has always meant not for loan 19:03 chris sorry not - not for loan 19:04 kados ahh, realy? 19:04 chris a reference would show up as not for loan 19:04 kados yea, but would it show up as available? 19:04 kados on the search results page? 19:05 chris hmm for 2.2 we dont say available .. we only say if its not 19:06 kados so you'd say 'Not for loan' as a status 19:06 kados interesting 19:06 kados well we have three groups currently: 19:06 chris http://www.library.org.nz/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?bib=58708 19:06 kados 1. not available (for some reason described, lost, damaged, wthdrawn) 19:07 kados 2. avaialble (means not checked out, and not not avaialble) 19:07 kados 3. checked out (someone has it on loan + it can have any of the not avaialble statuses) 19:07 kados sounds like we need a 4th 19:07 kados 4. Not supposed to be loaned ... but available on the shelf 19:08 kados owen: can you file a bug for that and assign it to me ? 19:08 kados I can add it lickity split 19:08 owen What will you call it? 19:08 kados Not for Loan 19:09 owen So an item marked as not for loan will no longer also show as available 19:09 kados it will show up as both available and not for loan 19:09 owen Actually, the search results page does show not for loans as unavailable. 19:09 kados ie, those aren't mutually exclusive as I'm understanding it 19:10 owen But the detail page says not for loan /and/ available. 19:10 kados yea, I think paul only altered the detail page IIRC 19:10 owen I'm not sure I understand the solution you're proposing 19:11 chris i think having something say not for loan, and available will be confusing at least in NZ .. will there be a way to switch it off? 19:12 owen Maybe we can come up with a solution that's clear for everyone? 19:13 kados available is currently defined as: 19:13 kados <!-- TMPL_UNLESS NAME="onloan" --><!-- TMPL_UNLESS NAME="itemlost" --><!-- TMPL_UNLESS NAME="wthdrawn" --><!-- TMPL_UNLESS NAME="damaged" --><!-- TMPL_UNLESS NAME="transfertwhen" --><!-- TMPL_UNLESS NAME="reservedate" --> 19:13 kados so maybe we need a status called 'On Shelf' 19:13 kados and just don't bother with the word Available 19:14 chris yeah available has always meant available to be borrowed here 19:14 kados chris: would that be clear? 19:14 chris so if that was changed to on shelf 19:14 chris combined with not for loan 19:14 kados owen: so just s/Available/On shelf/ 19:15 kados and I can add a new loop for items that are notforloan 19:15 chris but i dont like the reservedate thing 19:15 kados it's already there actually 19:15 chris just cos its reserved 19:15 owen And search results would say "5 on shelf, no items available" ? 19:15 chris doesnt mean i shouldnt be able to take it off the shelf 19:15 kados owen: I don't think we should use available at all 19:16 chris should only be if its marked waiting ... me hopes reservedate is only filled if its a waiting reserve 19:16 kados chris: yea, that's gonna need to be configuratble 19:16 kados configurable I mean 19:16 chris yep 19:16 owen So search results would say "5 on shelf" (it already says "not for loan" in the item display) 19:17 kados owen: yea 19:17 kados owen: also, did you notice, there are two ways to display item details on the results page 19:17 kados owen: one is illustrated in the OPAC and one in the staff side 19:17 kados owen: we need a new syspref to determine which one to display where 19:18 kados owen: some people will just want the summary display (like the current NPL opac) 19:18 kados and others will want the full-on detailed view (like wha the staff client has now) 19:18 kados I suspect we need two sysprefs, one for the OPAC and one for the Staff client display 19:29 owen kados: And you think detail.pl should say "Not for loan" and "On shelf" ? 19:32 kados owen: the display in detail should be identical to that in results 19:32 kados IMO 19:34 owen It's not as easy as that, because search results show a summary plus items, and detail.pl just shows items 19:34 owen http://staff.oleonard.dev.kohalibrary.com/cgi-bin/koha/catalogue/search.pl?&limit=fic:1&offset=20&sort_by=title_az 19:34 owen http://staff.oleonard.dev.kohalibrary.com/cgi-bin/koha/catalogue/detail.pl?biblionumber=195 19:37 owen Also, we'll need to fix the way results.tmpl judges whether something is available, because as you can see it says "5 unavailable" for "The black pearl" 19:38 kados oh, right 19:39 kados owen: all you need to do is change Available to On shelf 19:40 chris owen: good call with 1551, i can work on something for that, it might have to wait until i get some of the nastier bugs out of the way, but yep a little renewed indicator would be easy 19:40 kados notforloan should show up in the Avaialble loop (renamed to On shelf loop) 19:40 kados does that make sense? 19:40 chris owen: it could even tell you how many times its been renewed if that was useful 19:41 owen chris: Something like "Renewed. 1 of 2 renewals left" ? 19:42 kados we have that in the OPAC opac-user.pl, don't we? 19:42 chris yeah can do 19:42 owen kados: yes, but that display is for a "Renew" link, which is different 19:43 owen We're talking about the renew checkboxes in circ and moremember. 19:43 kados gotcha 19:44 owen kados: I can't just change available to on shelf, because I'm talking about where it says "No items available" and "<count> unavailable" 19:45 kados can't we just say 'no items on shelf and '<count> not on shelf' ? 19:45 owen But the items in question are on the shelf, they're just not for loan 19:45 kados ahh 19:46 kados yes, the problem is that they are currently being put into the wrong group 19:46 kados the notforloan ones should be put into the 'on shelf' loop (called avaialble) 19:46 owen Yes 19:46 kados so we need to revert paul's change, and then change the nomenclature 19:47 kados owen: I can do both of those, just file abug and assign it to me 19:48 kados Searching works 19:49 chris owen: got a sec to talk about 1704 ? 19:49 owen Yes 19:49 chris so you have automaticitemreturns off .. and you return an item to the wrong branch eh? 19:49 chris and you dont get a box saying 19:50 chris This item needs to be transfered to ML 19:50 chris (or whatever branch it needs to go to) 19:50 chris and a confirm and transfer button? 19:50 hdl chris : we already have a counter in items table for that don't we ? 19:50 chris hdl: for renewal yep, its just a matter of displaying it :) 19:51 owen chris: strange, just now it did. I wonder what was different about that item. 19:52 chris if you turn automaticitemreturns on .. you still get the dialogue .. it just automatically does the transfer for you 19:52 chris so no confirm button 19:52 owen Sometimes I just get "Please return <title> to <branch> 19:52 chris hmm really? 19:53 chris can you check the ones you get that for 19:53 chris do they have a reserve on them? 20:03 owen Should there be a yes/no choice if something needs to be transferred? 20:04 owen kados: Do you have an opinion on that question? 20:04 chris yes = click confirm and transfer 20:04 chris no = return another item 20:04 chris thats how it works now 20:04 owen So chris, if I don't click 'confirm and transfer,' it's checked in, but not transfered. 20:05 chris exactly 20:05 owen Okay, to take away the ambiguity, I think there should be a yes/no choice, and librarians can ignore it if they're savvy 20:05 chris what should the no do? 20:09 owen Hmm... Really all it has to do is make it look like the user made a choice. If we could rely on javascript, it could just hide the dialog. Otherwise you'd have to reload the page while retaining the history of previous checkins. 20:09 chris yeah it will have to reload the page 20:09 chris we cant rely on only js 20:09 chris someone will turn it off :-) 20:09 chris ok will do 20:10 masonj morning #koha 20:12 owen hi masonj 20:15 chris sending a patch now 20:21 chris ive changed the dialogue you get when you return an item that is already on transfer too, sending a patch for that now 20:27 owen chris: so now it asks you to transfer it to the branch specified in the original transfer rather than to the home branch? 20:27 chris yeah it should 20:27 chris to <!-- TMPL_VAR Name="TransferWaitingAt" --> 20:30 chris ill just check that is being populated right 20:32 masonj hiya owen