Before bug 9788 the alldates parameter of GetReservesFromItemnumber was
actually not used in the codebase.
The first patch of bug 9788 did change that and passed true by default.
But a closer look revealed that we do not really need it.
The parameter is removed by this patch; the SQL statement is slightly
adjusted: if reservedate<=now or a waitingdate is filled for the
requested itemnumber, GetReservesFromItemnumber will return the reserve.
This includes so-called future waits: a future hold that has been confirmed
ahead of time with pref ConfirmFutureHolds > 0 days.
Note that future item-level holds are not really interesting to return; this
just corresponds to original behavior. Future next-available holds are not
in view at all; they do not contain an item number.
Test plan:
Actually, the test plan of the first patch is valid. But for completeness I
repeat it here:
[1] Enable future holds and set ConfirmFutureHolds to 2 days.
[2] Place a future next-available hold for 2 days ahead.
[3] Check item status on catalogue detail. Available? That is fine.
[4] Confirm the future hold by checking it in. ('future wait')
[5] Look at item status again on catalogue detail. Must be Waiting now.
[6] Switch to OPAC and login as another opac user. Goto Place a hold.
[7] Check item status with item level hold info. Is it waiting?
[8] Try to place hold in staff, check item level status again. Waiting?
[9] Make a transfer for the item. Switch branch. Check hold status on
Transfers to receive.
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com>
Signed-off-by: Galen Charlton <gmc@esilibrary.com>
Marcel de Rooy
92be11bbcf