Comment 8 for bug 1897321

In case it helps, in 3.4, the bug is there as well.

 If I mark a record as transfer destination that does not have a holding for my library and then do an item transfer, the call number and item transfer. (if the item to be transferred is one of several copies, just that item is transferred and a new call number is created on the destination record)

If I mark a library as the transfer destination, with no holding for my library, I can also transfer the call number and item using item transfer.

So, far, I like this and don't consider it a bug -- that old saying -- it isn't a bug, it's a feature!

But, if I have holdings on a library and mark the record as destination, then transfer an item with different call number to that record as an item, the call number and item transfer. Which would be a bug if I didn't want a separate call number on the destination record. I would prefer the transfer to fail and tell me why or ask if I wanted to continue in case I did want to create a new vol/call number on a record.

I think we need to do more testing to see if this is a bug or how we want it to function. There are other scenarios to see what happens. Basically, I feel like an item transfer should transfer just the item and fail if there is not a call number on the destination record to keep the distinction. At the same time it is really convenient not to need to create an empty call number on the destination record.

I will try to send this to the cat list today for everyone to test to see whether we should open a bug report and how we would define the bug.