[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Holds selection_depth Best sort order usage

[Josh Stompro]

Thanks Jason, I think that the ordering of the selection_depth must be a bug.  I can see how it would make sense to prioritize branch depth over system, and system over consortium if soft hold boundaries are in effect. Fill the holds that can only be filled locally first, then fill the holds that can only be filled in the same system, then any. But I don't get why doing it the opposite way (which it is currently doing) would make sense.

Would someone that uses soft boundaries care to share their opinion please.  Has anyone that uses soft boundaries noticed that the holds with a selection_depth of 0 get higher priority than others?  If you have depth included in your sort order.

I'll file a bug and submit a fix if someone can confirm that the sort should be descending not ascending.

Josh Stompro - LARL IT Director


-----Original Message-----
From: Open-ils-dev [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Jason Stephenson
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:53 AM
To: Evergreen Development Discussion List
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Holds selection_depth Best sort order usage

Josh,

My understanding is that depth is mainly used with holds boundaries.
It prevents holds from being filled from outside the current boundary.

NCIPServer also uses it to place title holds that can only be filled by a specific branch.

I imagine it is necessary in the best hold sort order when boundaries are in effect. When they are not in effect, then the depth is likely to be 0 and have little effect on the sort order.

HtH,
Jason


--
Jason Stephenson
Assistant Director for Technology Services Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
4 High ST, Suite 175
North Andover, MA 01845
Phone: 978-557-5891
Email: jstephenson at mvlc.org