Deleting an item will not remove the item from bookable resources

[Dale Rigney]

When you delete an item that is listed as a bookable resource, the item will remain in the list for bookable items. You can even select the barcode and confirm a reservation for that item even though the item is marked as deleted in asset.copy.

To make a reservation on the deleted item you need to enter a barcode of the same resource type in the "Create Reservations" screen click on Next and then select the deleted barcode off the list provided. If you enter the deleted barcode on the "Create Reservations" screen you will receive a "Could not locate that resource." error.

[Michele Morgan (mmorgan)]

Confirming that this can still happen in 3.2. Not sure if this will be addressed as part of bug 1816475, but will reference it there.

[Rogan Hamby (rogan-hamby)]

I was just brainstorming with someone on this and the current setup for bookable resources that are also cataloged items is complicated. Bookable resources only have an indirect link to the cataloged item. So, right now we could only update through a trigger on asset.copy but that is very expensive on every copy update for how much booking resources are used. A related issue is cascading updates - right now a barcode could change on an item and it would not change the barcode on the booked resource.

Right now I'm unsure of the best path forward but would be glad to hear thoughts.

[Jane Sandberg (sandbergja)]

Having a more solid link between booking.resource and asset.copy would also probably help with a solution to https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1085263

[Rogan Hamby (rogan-hamby)]

Even with something like a copy/resource map we would still need a trigger for updates and that kind of makes my right eye twitch. Purely in the spirit of brainstorming it seem like it would be conceptually easiest to have resources become a child table of asset.copy. There would be some upgrade hurdles but I'm imagining that would be a major set of workflow changes for people using these resources since copies have a lot more requirements than resources. And thus a lot of UI changes too. There would also be a need to audit various logic. I'm assuming that is not a realistic option at this time.

[Jane Sandberg (sandbergja)]

Just out of curiosity, what would be the drawback to simply adding a nullable "copy" column to booking.resource that references asset.copy? It seems like the easiest way to have a nice solid link, but I'm guessing there has to be some reason nobody has done that.