NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/bit/listserv/notisl/2859

Text File | 1992-07-22 | 1.9 KB | 39 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UTDALLAS.BITNET!BAUGHMAN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:46:00 CDT
Sender:       NOTIS/DOBIS discussion group list <[e-mail]>
From:         Barbara <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Recalls
Lines: 28

We have had so many problems with recalls, and we keep learning of new
ones.  There is no way to allow recalls and enforce reasonable policies
on fines or even due dates.  Whoever rewrote this part of NOTIS to work
with the new LCRFILE tables, didn't understand how the system was suppose
to work.  This program or programs needs to be totally reviewed
and reworked.  Piecemeal fixes are not acceptable.  Unless this is reworked
I cannot be convinvced that there aren't more bombshells waiting to be
discovered.  Somewhere in the process, recall coding was not properly
explained to the programmer, not thoroughly tested, or something.
Does NSI even have something that explains the program logic as it
existed in 4.6.1?  We'd like that same logic to be reflected in 5.0.x.
Right now it doesn't even bear a remote resemblance.  And, yes, there are
other folks who recall NSI saying at NUGM 1991 "There are no changes to
the circulation module except that some things that obviously didn't use
to work now work."

I'm not trying to put the blame on anyone in particular.  I'd personnally hate
to be the programmer who had to figure out how recalls work.  I just want
it redone so that it works.  NSI needs a very clear flowchart of the recall
logic and someone needs to check that the logic is followed in the program.
Without this, I don't see how NSI can claim to have an LMS system that
handles recalls.

Barbara Baughman
TECH1
University of Texas at Dallas
[phone]
[e-mail]