Comment 32 for bug 925776

Mike Rylander (mrylander) wrote :

First, Liam, thank you for your work looking at this.

Having investigated the issue, the problem is that we're not rechecking for Located URIs that are outside our scope at the end of the staff-type visibility testing. I've added exactly that check, a scope-inverted query for URIs. This respects all settings (such as the new "acts-as-copy" global flag) and scoping requests (preferred OU, search OU, search depth) without extra effort.

It does not piggy-back filtering of e-resource records on limit-to-available as Liam's does. If consensus is that limit-to-available should filter out e-resource records, we can make that change, but it's my opinion that just because a resource is electronic does not mean it's not available. The record type can be used for that purpose, as well, and if we don't trust the MARC (fair) then "limit to physical" or "exclude online resources" options seems like a less confusing route.

Here's the branch:;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/miker/lp925776_staff-uri-visibility