Skip to:

  1. Skip to Jira Navigation
  2. Skip to Side Navigation
  3. Skip to Main Content

MG: edge-rtac is applying parentheses to any values returned in <volume>

Description

This issue applies to any rtac response that returns <volume> 

Steps to reproduce - Issue 1

  1. Go to https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/ (u: folio / p: folio) 

  2. Find an item record 

  3. Enter a value in Enumeration field or enter a value in Enumeration + Chronology field 

  4. Make a GET call that includes &fullPeriodicals=true (just to make sure we get item level response regardless of instance mode of issuance.) 

Expected outcome: Do not apply parentheses to the value returned in <volume> 

Actual outcome: Surrounds <volume> value with parentheses. Responses below

 

Steps to reproduce - Issue 2

  1. Go to https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/ (u: folio / p: folio) 

  2. Find an item record 

  3. Enter a value in Volume field 

  4. Make a GET call that includes &fullPeriodicals=true (just to make sure we get item level response regardless of instance mode of issuance.) 

Expected outcome: Do not apply parentheses to the value returned in <volume> 

Actual outcome: Surrounds <volume> value with parentheses. Responses below

Responses 

https://edge-bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/rtac?instanceIds=9fd11f74-ab24-4298-bfb3-1bfca1f473d9&apikey=eyJzIjoiVDNUSzAzR2QyViIsInQiOiJmczA5MDAwMDAwIiwidSI6ImZzMDkwMDAwMDAifQ==&fullPeriodicals=true 

https://edge-bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/rtac?instanceIds=389a32fc-b877-4efd-aefa-a351dee80453&apikey=eyJzIjoiVDNUSzAzR2QyViIsInQiOiJmczA5MDAwMDAwIiwidSI6ImZzMDkwMDAwMDAifQ== 

 

CSP Request Details

None

CSP Rejection Details

None

Potential Workaround

None

Checklist

hide

TestRail: Results

Activity

Show:

Khalilah Gambrell August 11, 2022 at 11:30 AM

Marc Johnson August 11, 2022 at 10:10 AM

I've checked the code for this area. The parentheses seem to be part of some specifically defined rules (copied from the code below):

Data set

(derived) Volume

enumeration

(enumeration)

enumeration chronology

(enumeration chronology)

enumeration chronology volume

(enumeration chronology)

volume

(volume)

chronology volume

(volume)

chronology

(chronology)

I've traced changes in this area back through two changes made by in 2020 (one approved by and another approved by ).

The logic seems to predate those changes (it only moved the code around and improved the testing of it).

Tracing back further than that has proved harder to do, however it does seem to predate those changes.

This suggests to me that the decision to include parentheses in this field was made actively and isn't a regression bug.

Please can you advise on what should be done?

Marc Johnson August 11, 2022 at 8:59 AM

Changed to a bug (as it is marked as regression and won't be on the Morning Glory dashboards as a story)

Won't Do

Details

Assignee

Reporter

Priority

Sprint

Development Team

Prokopovych

RCA Group

TBD

TestRail: Cases

Open TestRail: Cases

TestRail: Runs

Open TestRail: Runs

Created August 11, 2022 at 12:20 AM
Updated August 11, 2022 at 11:30 AM
Resolved August 11, 2022 at 11:30 AM
TestRail: Cases
TestRail: Runs