Reviewed and it seems to make sense to me. However as I worked on testing this, I found that record summary of copies does not take the part order into consideration. Using the concerto dataset (record 84, for example), I found that the order of copies was based on call number, barcode, etc.
Reviewed and it seems to make sense to me. However as I worked on testing this, I found that record summary of copies does not take the part order into consideration. Using the concerto dataset (record 84, for example), I found that the order of copies was based on call number, barcode, etc.
I think this is based on what we see in Open-ILS/ src/perlmods/ lib/OpenILS/ Application/ AppUtils. pm (see this commit for an example of a recent change for copy ordering -- http:// git.evergreen- ils.org/ ?p=Evergreen. git;a=commit; h=d21d1dac8f021 2764de5a2c3e352 ceebc2d63ef5 )
Setting this bug back to incomplete pending further review and work.