Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Shannon Dineen
Participantthis is fixed in 3.7
Shannon Dineen
ParticipantI may be confused but can advise we use Evergreen permissions to allow all Sitka LSA staff to edit their own hours and addresses in organizational units. To confirm what I mean, we document it for our libraries here if curious: http://docs.libraries.coop/sitka/_organizational_units.html
LSA are only able to edit these two things, and only LSA have the perm(s) granted. Is this what is meant here?
I am also interested in voting on the related bug referenced by Ruth, to allow split hours. https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1396764
If aspects of the two ideas get merged into one I am in favour of that too.
Thanks
Shannon Dineen
ParticipantSitka LSA staff currently can edit their own hours and addresses in organizational units, we use perms to control it. We are currently on 3.5, and have allowed this in prior versions as well. Is this what is meant here?
See Organizational UnitsI am also interested in discussing/voting on related bug as flagged by Ruth, 1396764
Shannon Dineen
ParticipantI may be confused (?!), but wanted to advise that BC Libraries Support team uses Evergreen permissions to allow Sitka library staff with the LSA profile to edit their own open hours and addresses in the server admin org unit interface. They are restricted to those settings, and only LSA is granted that perm(s).
We are currently on 3.5 ,but have allowed this for past versions too. To help confirm what I mean, we document it for our member libraries here if curious http://docs.libraries.coop/sitka/_organizational_units.htmlI am also interested in discussing/voting on the other part of this idea, which is noted by Ruth above, regarding split hours and other atypical schedules, so if various aspects of these 2 ideas end up in one idea I am in favour of that too.
Other bug is https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1396764
Thanks!
Shannon Dineen
Participant+1
Shannon Dineen
ParticipantThis would be of interest to us.
Shannon Dineen
ParticipantWe (MassLNC circa 2017) originally decided against this at the time of development, i.e. decided to not allow it due to possible result set size, load concerns, and the like. If there is change in the new OPAC, that will preclude load concerns, I would support this, otherwise I prefer current functionality be maintained.
-
AuthorPosts