← Previous day | Today | Next day → | Search | Index
All times shown according to UTC.
| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 15:35 | cm | hello... is rch or mason around? |
| 16:22 | kados | rch should be |
| 16:23 | rch | hi cm |
| 17:05 | Lea | hi! any news on a 3.0 release date? thanks! |
| 17:19 | cm | hi rch, i'm back from lunch. |
| 17:20 | i think the new issuingrules stuff isn't accounting for holidays correctly; | |
| 17:21 | i've been testing, and my due dates are 2 days off, | |
| 17:22 | and there are two holidays in the two-week issuing period (two Sundays). | |
| 17:25 | also, i noticed that circulation.pl uses Smart::Comments; | |
| 17:25 | is that necessary, or is that for debugging? | |
| 17:25 | i commented it out because my test server complained. | |
| 17:26 | i don't have it installed. | |
| 17:30 | rch | ah, yes, just comment out Smart::Comments |
| 17:31 | is it counting all holidays when it should only count if the returndate is on a holiday? | |
| 17:35 | cm | i think so. |
| 17:35 | that's the only reason i can think of why it would be over by two days. | |
| 17:35 | i can try adding a couple more to see what it does. | |
| 17:37 | rch | i recall the original code actually did that... extended loan period by the number of contained holidays. |
| 17:44 | cm: what's the value of your useDaysMode syspref ? | |
| 17:44 | cm | Duedate |
| 17:44 | rch | yep |
| 17:44 | try Datedue | |
| 17:44 | cm | ah. |
| 17:45 | rch | looks like this was changed when module was moved from Calendar/Calendar to Calendar |
| 17:46 | cm | hmm. still two days off. |
| 17:47 | rch | hm. |
| 17:48 | ok, i'll take a look | |
| 17:48 | cm | wait! nevermind. |
| 17:48 | i guess it didn't stick first time i did it. | |
| 17:48 | it's okay now. | |
| 17:50 | rch | great - bad typo on my part ... i committed Datedue to rel3 & 2_2 but forgot to fix dev_week. |
| 17:50 | so it seems to calc correctly now ? | |
| 17:50 | cm | yep. |
| 17:51 | hey, did you happen to see the bug about the marc editor i reported to koha bugzilla? | |
| 17:54 | ah, here it is: | |
| 17:54 | http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/b[…]w_bug.cgi?id=1345 | |
| 17:54 | i think you and/or owen wrote the section of code where i think the bug is, | |
| 17:55 | but i couldn't figure out what was happening further than that. | |
| 17:55 | rch | hmm- not me. I don't remember that ever working correctly :( |
| 17:55 | cm | it worked in the previous version. :( |
| 17:56 | rch | in 2.2.x? |
| 17:56 | cm | no, in dev_week. |
| 17:56 | the last update was to fix the problem with replicable fields not replicating. | |
| 17:57 | but something broke the warning about which required fields were incomplete. | |
| 17:59 | it still highlights the incomplete required fields, but instead of telling you which ones they are, it says "tab t" | |
| 17:59 | hi owen. | |
| 17:59 | owen | Hi |
| 17:59 | dewey | privet, owen |
| 17:59 | cm | privet? |
| 18:00 | rch | hey owen |
| 18:00 | we were just talking about http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/b[…]w_bug.cgi?id=1345 | |
| 18:00 | owen | dewey just likes to show off. He thinks he speaks Russian. |
| 18:00 | dewey | owen: sorry... |
| 18:01 | rch | marc editor javascript mandatory tag error |
| 18:01 | does that work for npl? | |
| 18:01 | owen | Yes, but I imagine we're behind on updates, unless Joshua has been doing them all along without telling us |
| 18:03 | ...although when I diff the copy on our server there's only one minor unrelated change... | |
| 18:03 | rch | it reports which fields were missing ? |
| 18:15 | owen | Weird, I was just looking at the log to see what you guys had discussed before I came in, and there's stuff in the log that I didn't hear just now |
| 18:16 | kados | weird |
| 18:16 | hi guys | |
| 18:16 | owen | Ryan: Yes, it reports in fine detail which fields were missing. |
| 18:16 | cm and rch: I believe it was paul that wrote the javascript validation. I've only tweaked it in very minor ways. | |
| 18:17 | cm | odd. |
| 18:18 | hi kados. | |
| 18:18 | rch | we'll have to do some diffs on the template and script |
| 18:20 | owen | Shoot, I'm totally not hearing what you guys are saying. |
| 18:21 | cm | i just tested with opera, same error. |
| 18:22 | so it's not a firefox/javascript oddity. | |
| 18:22 | iirc i also tested it with the npl template before, and still got the error. | |
| 18:22 | owen | cm, do you have Firefox set up to show you Javascript errors? |
| 18:22 | cm | no. |
| 18:22 | good idea. | |
| 18:23 | owen | If it's the Perl script you may not get any, but if it's the Javascript... |
| 18:25 | cm | is this helpful? |
| 18:25 | Warning: Unknown property 'mozopacity'. Declaration dropped. | |
| 18:25 | Source File: https://circ.ccfls.org/intrane[…]s/marc-editor.css | |
| 18:25 | Line: 85 | |
| 18:25 | this is from firefox's error console. | |
| 18:26 | owen | Unfortunately that's not significant. |
| 18:26 | cm | yeah, figured not. |
| 18:28 | rch | yeah, i don't recall ever seeing js errors. |
| 18:30 | cm | all i see in the console are a bunch of css errors. |
| 18:30 | is there any other way to get javascript errors? | |
| 18:31 | owen | cm, you could make the console more readable by clearing all the errors and reloading the page |
| 18:32 | Otherwise it's filled up with stuff from your other browsed pages. | |
| 18:32 | But it should be accurate in terms of errors. | |
| 18:33 | It's perfectly possible that there are no javascript errors, and that the script is just outputting something unintended. | |
| 18:34 | cm | i did that. |
| 18:36 | here's something: | |
| 18:36 | Error: uncaught exception: [Exception... "'[JavaScript Error: "this._windows[aWindow.__SSi] has no properties" {file: "file:///usr/lib/firefox/components/nsSessionStore.js" line: 670}]' when calling method: [nsISessionStore::getClosedTabCount]" nsresult: "0x80570021 (NS_ERROR_XPC_JAVASCRIPT_ERROR_WITH_DETAILS)" location: "JS frame :: chrome://browser/content/browser.js :: PHM_toggleRecentlyClosedTabs :: line 6352" data: yes] | |
| 18:36 | or maybe not. | |
| 18:37 | owen | Looks like a Firefox internal error |
| 18:37 | cm | at least it's a javascript error. ;) |
| 18:38 | rch | it's here: |
| 18:38 | missing_mandatory_subfields.push(f.field_value[i].innerHTML + " (tab " + f.field_value[i].parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.id.substr(0,1) + ")"); | |
| 18:39 | i don't think it should be parentNode | |
| 18:40 | owen: what's the previous sibling ? | |
| 18:41 | i mean, how do you reference prev sibling in javascript? | |
| 18:42 | owen | Do you mean you don't think parentNode is the right way to reference it, or parentNode is referencing the wrong thing? |
| 18:44 | rch | well, if it's not throwing an error, then it's referencing something, (that starts with a 't') |
| 18:48 | owen | rch, do you think cm's copy of addbiblio.tmpl is different than npl's? |
| 18:48 | cm | i'll have a look at it. |
| 18:48 | rch | yes, i think so. |
| 18:48 | cm | we're using the one from our template. |
| 18:49 | we used npl's as a basis for it. | |
| 18:51 | owen | Is it up to date with CVS? |
| 18:51 | cm | it has a different date than the one in cvs, but it's the same size. |
| 18:52 | owen | There's barely any difference between npl and ccfls... I wonder if it could be something about your MARC structure? |
| 18:53 | cm | maybe. |
| 18:53 | rch | owen: i think you are not up to date with cvs ? |
| 18:53 | cm | any idea what it could be? |
| 18:53 | rch | can you check your javascript for the mandatory check? |
| 18:53 | owen | No, but I have a fresh copy of the files on my local machine |
| 18:56 | There do seem to be many differences between the update-to-date addbiblio.tmpl and the one on NPL's server | |
| 18:59 | cm | do you have any way to test the up-to-date one? |
| 19:00 | owen | I don't have access to a testing server right now... One of the unfortunate consequences of losing exclusive access to kados ;) |
| 19:01 | That line about 'missing_mandatory_subfields.push' is one of the differences between the new file and our old one | |
| 19:02 | rch | and how about this one: |
| 19:02 | if (f.field_value[i].parentNode.tagName == "B") | |
| 19:02 | what's the diff look like? | |
| 19:03 | owen | What line for that tagName == "B" ? |
| 19:04 | rch | it's an if() containing the mandatory.push() es. |
| 19:04 | but in my templates, there are no elements with that attribute. | |
| 19:07 | owen | rch, that line is the same, but the following line is different |
| 19:07 | The old file has: | |
| 19:07 | missing_mandatory_subfields.push(f.field_value[i].innerHTML + " ( is B tab " + f.field_value[i].parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.id.substr(0,1) + ")"); | |
| 19:22 | rch | cm: i'll get a diff on this and update cvs. |
| 19:22 | rel_2_2 is broken as well | |
| 19:25 | owen | Wow... a 70 minute lecture on Git from Linus Torvalds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 |
| 19:26 | cm | thanks rch. |
| 19:29 | yep. wish i could scp these things to my tv so i could watch them at home. haven't gotten around to building a pvr yet. | |
| 19:29 | too much like work. ;) | |
| 19:45 | owen | cm: I wonder if it would be cost-effective to pay a genius 15-year-old to build one for you? :) |
| 20:02 | cm | it's not a bad idea. ;) |
| 20:03 | i could get genius kyle to do it, though he's much older than 15. |
← Previous day | Today | Next day → | Search | Index