Comment 85 for bug 1198465

I just successfully tested two scenarios like the one in comment #83. In one use case, the prohibit negative balances setting was unset and, in the other case, it was set to true. In both cases, the system behaved as expected.

 When the negative balance setting was unset, overdue fines were reinstated and new ones were added as expected. The remaining balance was the same as it would have been if the code had not been loaded. When it was set to true,the fines were reinstated and new fines generated, but there was no negative balance left on the record.

Overall, it looks promising, but I would like to go through all of my use cases again to make sure the various library settings are working as expected while Dan and Remington work on the other branch. I will make the time to do so this week.

Thanks for sticking with this Dan!