Comment 27 for bug 907056

1. Changing search library when you click on "Show preferred library" was intentional. How is a user supposed to predict when a change wrought by a click that they make has a temporary effect (and know what the boundaries of that temporariness are) vs. sticky? The change affects the org selector, so they have direct feedback for their action, and they have the choice of either hitting the Back button or selecting a different scope in the org selector if they want to change scope back from their preferred library to a different scope. I think it's weird and unexpected for the scope to simply snap back to whatever it was before they hit "Show preferred library" if they click on any of the other links on the page; I also think it would be weird if "Show preferred library" _didn't_ change the org selector.

2. Hmm. The search results in that screen shot don't really look sorted by copy availability, do they? I'm sure that was working using the concerto set on a clean master database, but I'll try to replicate that copy availability sorting issue again here. Just to check: do your config.copy_status settings match the defaults from master? (I kind of hate trying to debug problems when I don't have access to the same set of data, but as mentioned, I'll try to reproduce here with a clean set of concerto data first and report back).

3. Waaiiit. I thought you wanted availability to be the determining factor for displaying copies. Thus it makes sense to me that the library with only a less-available "on order" copy would display after the available copies.

Do you mean to say that you _always_ want libraries to appear in name order (or wait - isn't it actually in order of proximity to the search library, then by library name within each tier of proximity) and that the availability of the copies within those libraries should only determine the display order of the copies within the bounds of that given library?

Also... I offered up a fix for ensuring that copies from non-opac-visible-OUs stay properly hidden earlier today (already tested and committed today). I'm having a hard time believing that that "on order" copy was at the top in that case, unless all of the other copies were checked out.

4. I strongly believe that it's important to include "(Preferred)" or "(Preferred library)" to give a hint to the user _why_ the copy counts for that library, which is outside their chosen scope, is being displayed. Otherwise, it's throwing more guessing games at the user as they attempt to build a mental model of how this thing is constructed.