Quick patron add?

Someone posted an enhancement request today requesting a change to the way the patron entry form is arranged in the Koha staff client. By default the patron entry form is pretty long, and the request asks that required fields be grouped at the top.

It seems like a reasonable request, but there’s a big disadvantage to trying to solve this problem with a template-only change: Libraries can customize which fields are mandatory when entering patrons. The system preference for that isĀ  BorrowerMandatoryField (“borrower” being the term used in place of “patron” at the time of the preference’s creation).

What alternatives might there be to a template-only solution?

  1. Alter the script which generates the patron entry form so that any required fields (no matter which ones they are) are displayed at the top.
  2. Create a “quick-add” form which shows only required fields.
  3. Add a filter to the full patron entry form to toggle display of non-mandatory fields.

I like option two as a long-term solution, but option three could be implemented now with some custom JavaScript. Here’s a proof-of-concept script to show that using the markup which exists in the form now we can pull only required fields:

[sourcecode language=”javascript”]

var list = “

Quick Add

    item = $(this).parent().html()
    item = “

  1. “+item+”
  2. “;
    list += item;
    list += “




Paste that into your intranetuserjs system preference or into Firebug’s command line to give it a try. Note that this solution assumes two things:

  1. You’ve already specified a patron category (by choosing one from the “new” menu).
  2. You’re adding patrons to the default branch for your logged-in user.

Of course the form could be customized to include these choices, but they’re probably safe assumptions for quick adds. A better implementation of this would probably allow you to toggle between either view: quick or standard.

2 thoughts on “Quick patron add?

  1. Liz Rea

    We had a problem with this where people would try to change the number of a patron, and be unable to because they didn’t fill in both fields for the card number with the new number. Of course, we didn’t realize what the issue was right away so we took it out as soon as they started complaining. Any thoughts on dealing with the “edit patron” scenario?

    They really liked the idea of it though.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.