Deleting monograph parts that are attached to copies should require permission and confirmation

Bug #1334842 reported by Justin Hopkins
34
This bug affects 7 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Evergreen
Confirmed
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Currently, as of 2.6.1, it's possible for a user (with permissions to manage monograph parts) to delete monograph part entries and that those entries will be removed from any copies already using them. We think this violates the existing permissions that should prevent a user in one system from editing the items belonging to another system.

I'd propose that users be prompted before removing "parts in use" and that an additional permission be created to allow the override.

Also, rather than parts being deleted, a deleted = t/f flag could be used so that erroneously deleted parts could be restored if necessary.

Kathy Lussier (klussier)
Changed in evergreen:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Remington Steed (rjs7)
tags: added: parts
Elaine Hardy (ehardy)
tags: added: cat-parts permissions
removed: parts
Revision history for this message
Britta Dorsey (bdorsey-isl) wrote :

3.9.1

We are having issues with parts being deleted while items are still attached. Would it be possible to treat parts like we treat bib records with holdings? The deletion is denied because there are still holdings attached.

Revision history for this message
Elaine Hardy (ehardy) wrote :

I routinely have to delete part labels that are incorrectly assigned to items attached to a bib record that is part of a series, but for a single volume. Some people think because there is a volume number associated with the bib, it should have a part, regardless of how many times I explain why it doesn't.

I would want to retain the ability to delete the part to make these corrections.

Revision history for this message
Britta Dorsey (bdorsey-isl) wrote :

Thanks for the reminder, Elaine!

What about including an override option like Justin mentions in the original comment? Or just a prompt stating the part is "in use"?

Revision history for this message
Elaine Hardy (ehardy) wrote :

Either would be fine.

Revision history for this message
Tiffany Little (tslittle) wrote :

I think this should be controlled by a permission, with maybe a prompt/confirmation like Britta suggests.

Changed in evergreen:
status: Triaged → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Galen Charlton (gmc) wrote :

Another factor: if there are any active part holds targeting the part, nothing happens to those holds. It seems like that at minimum such holds such block the deletion until they are reviewed and either cancelled or have their target changed.

See also bug 1533316 about holds not getting updated when parts are merged.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.