Mixed use of Account Adjustment payments creates inconsistency
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evergreen |
Confirmed
|
Medium
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Evergreen 2.12 (as of 2.9).
Sites that allow negative balances largely behave the same in EG 2.9+ as they did prior to 2.9 with respect to voiding bills. There is, however, one notable exception. From the 2.9 release notes:
"The account adjustment payment type will also be used for all libraries, regardless of the state of negative balance settings, in cases where overdue fines are adjusted when an overdue item is
marked lost."
So, for example a circulation that's overdue, then checked in with a back-date, will have its overdue fines marked as voided. The same circulation marked lost instead will have its overdue fines remain intact, but balanced with account adjustment payments.
My preference for using account adjustments notwithstanding, requiring two ways of undoing a billing creates a potentially confusing inconsistency, not only for staff but also for those cooking^
Some possibilities:
1. Revert to traditional voiding for mark-lost for those not using negative balance settings.
I have tested this (by removing force_zero=>1 from AssetCommon:818) with success. I'll push a branch.
2. Support the use of Account Adjustment payments as a wholesale replacement for all automated voiding, regardless of negative balance settings. (I think there may still be cases where true voiding makes sense -- e.g. bills created by human error). I have not considered the implications of this beyond this paragraph.
Changed in evergreen: | |
importance: | Undecided → Medium |
status: | New → Confirmed |
tags: |
added: circ-billing removed: billing |
Code for option #1 above:
http:// git.evergreen- ils.org/ ?p=working/ Evergreen. git;a=shortlog; h=refs/ heads/user/ berick/ lp1671856- lost-od- void-not- adjust
I could also see adding a setting to retain the account-adjustment approach for lost overdue voiding, since it could be doubly confusing to go from voiding to adjustments, then back to voiding, for sites already running 2.9+ (i.e. practically everyone). I'll wait on feedback before I do that.