Comment 22 for bug 1315552

I haven't looked at the code, but I want to jump in on the best-copy order. I'm not sure the true best-copy ranking should be considered a separate enhancement bug since, from what I understand, there is a current ranking that will change as a result of this code.

Looking at http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commit;h=2cce485ffc953176760b4972ffc7f2944661f4b6

The current sort behavior is intentional. I believe it has been adapted since that time, but there was a reason copy availability was part of that best copy order. It may appear to be subtle, but when you are working with public libraries that buy multiple copies of a bestseller, ignoring copy availability on the search results screen leads to a situation where all copies listed in the search results screen may show as unavailable, even though there is another copy available in the library. Those patrons may then skip over that title believing that it is not immediately available. It may not be a situation seen in academic libraries very often, but it is something we come across frequently in a consortium with many public libraries.

I understand that this bug needs to be fixed, but if you are breaking another library's feature to address this issue, then you are are adding a new problem IMO. I worry that treating the fix for the new problem as an enhancement on a separate bug means that it will not be resolved any time soon. My preference is that we not create the new problem to begin with and see if there is a way to fix this bug without changing the current sort order.