[OPEN-ILS-DEV] copy create date vs. receive date in ACQ for hold protection

[Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley]

Of the options, I like #2 the best.  Assuming age hold protection logic 
isn't duplicated (living in more than one place) this seems cleanest, 
and a prominent comment would at least increase the likelihood of 
catching somebody's attention if/when age hold protection needs to learn 
any more similar tricks.

My preference for option 2 is mostly a gut thing, though.

-- 
Lebbeous

On 05/24/2011 02:37 PM, erickson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to solve the problem of accurately managing copy age hold
> protection for items created through acquisitions.  I seem to recall
> some recent discussion about this in IRC, though I don't know if any
> decision was reached (and the relevant logs elude me) so I'm taking it
> to the list...
>
> Age protection looks at copy create_date to determine how long to
> protect the copy from foreign holds.  If an item is created through
> acquisitions, though, the create date of the copy will be the date at
> which the copy was, well, created and not the date it was marked as
> received (i.e. arrived at the library).  This means that some portion of
> the age protection interval will be spent waiting for (holdable,
> age-protected) on-order copies to arrive at the library from the vendor,
> limiting the value of age protection.  I see 3 possible ways out of this:
>
> 1. Set copy.create_date to 'now' at copy receive time.  This is the
> simplest solution, but has the disadvantage of clobbering some
> potentially useful data - the date the copy was actually created.
>
> 2. Change the age hold protection logic to investigate the receive date
> (acq.lineitem_detail.recv_time) when available, falling back to
> copy.create_date when not.
>
> 3. Add a new field to the copy to track receive date (active_date?) in
> addition to create date.  This would also require changes to the age
> protection logic.
>
> Preferences or alternate suggestions?
>
> Thanks
>
> -b
>