documentation includes misleading example for circulation policies
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evergreen |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
3.11 |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
The page "Borrowing items: who, what, for how long" is very very useful. However, the image "Example 1" is misleading.
3.4: https:/
3.6: https:/
The image in question: https:/
That image is used as an example of a consortial policy that does not charge fines, but one library within that system does. The first row is the no-fines policy and reads:
org_unit: CONS
duration_rule: 21_day_2_renew
recurring_
max_fine_rule: NONE
I tried to implement this, and broke my library's ability to circulate items. I interpreted NONE as NULL, and removed the recurring_fine_rule in the circulation_
Sure enough, a reading of action.
Unless the mandatory fields have changed, then the example would be more clear if it read:
org_unit: CONS
duration_rule: 21_day_2_renew
recurring_
max_fine_rule: 0d_max_fine
which are the "zero" valued fine rules in the screenshots above (in the 3.6 documentation).
Also: The 3.6 documentation on that page is very good, much gratitude to the folks who worked on it.
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | nobody → Gina Monti (gmonti90) |
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | Gina Monti (gmonti90) → Andrea Neiman (aneiman) |
tags: | added: signedoff |
Changed in evergreen: | |
status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
Branch: https:/ /github. com/evergreen- library- system/ Evergreen/ pull/244
I decided to also format the rest of the images into tables since these aren't actually screenshots (at least from what I was able to tell).