Cannot update MARC authority record with 010 $a (Orchid) with an existing profile
Description
CSP Request Details
CSP Rejection Details
Potential Workaround
Attachments
Checklist
hideTestRail: Results
Activity

Khalilah Gambrell September 15, 2023 at 12:09 PM
Hey all. , , and I figured out the issue with 999 ff.
If your job profile has only Update action profile(s) linked then you can keep the 999 ff field on records
If your job profile has both Create and Update action profile(s) linked then you must remove 999 ff field from records
Pavlo Smahin September 15, 2023 at 11:49 AM
Hey , , I think that the Folijet team introduced this logic (to reject records that have 999ff) some time ago.
cc:

Valery_Pilko September 15, 2023 at 11:23 AM
Hey
If you're trying to upload "MARC authority" which has "999 ff" in the file and use match by 010 field - I think that it is expected to get error, because uploaded file has 999 ff.
You could use file which has "999 ff" only for update by "999 ff" match.

Khalilah Gambrell September 15, 2023 at 10:57 AM
Hey - maybe I am missing something but I believe I created the same profile that you did and I still cannot update a MARC authority record with 999 ff when using Orchid bugfest. Can you double check my job profile - https://bugfest-orchid.int.aws.folio.org/settings/data-import/job-profiles/view/90cc8376-884c-484d-a8bf-9357f587355d?query=MODDATAIMP-918&sort=name?

Valery_Pilko September 15, 2023 at 10:26 AMEdited
Hi
I confirm the same issue as you've described with existing job profiles.
Also, I've retested the update of MARC authority via "Data import" on Orchid bugfest with completely new Job profile - works as expected.
1 case - Job profile has only one action (Update) - works as expected.
See attached screenshot:
2 case - Job profile has two actions (Update+create) - works as expected.
See attached screenshot (MODDATAIMP-918_Update_of_MARC_auth_with_new_profile+create.png)
3 case - Job profile has two actions (Update+create) and user upload record with 999 field - works as expected
See attached screenshot:
MODDATAIMP-918_Update_of_MARC_auth_with_new_profile+create(record_has_999).png
About existing Job profile"Update MARC authority record by 010 $a match" which, mentioned in the description - I don't see any difference on UI between existing and created by me "VP_Update MARC auth".
Maybe the reason for the situation with existing job profile could be this issue: MODDICONV-324?
Please review it.
Additional problems found on Orchid bugfest environment:
Additional issue 1:
Existing "MARC authority" cannot be deleted from UI because of 500 error.
See attached screenshot:
Additional issue 2:
Imported "MARC authority" record cannot be found by searching in "MARC authority" app. Maybe it requires a reindex?
See attached screencast:
Hi ,
Could you please check the reason for Additional issues?
Details
Details
Assignee
Reporter

In July 2023, I could run on Orchid Bugfest > Update MARC authority record by 010 $a match (https://bugfest-orchid.int.aws.folio.org/settings/data-import/job-profiles/view/4da0d6a8-ff41-4ddc-bdda-3f9442d91271?query=Update%20MARC%20authority%20record%20by%20010%20%24a%20match&sort=name)
AND the actual and expected outcome was
MARC authority record updated if 010 $a match is found
MARC authority record created if no 010 $a match is found
September 2023,
Export a MARC authority record in Orchid bugfest
Edit the MARC authority record
Return to Orchid Bugfest
Load updated MARC authority record
Run on Orchid Bugfest > Update MARC authority record by 010 $a match (https://bugfest-orchid.int.aws.folio.org/settings/data-import/job-profiles/view/4da0d6a8-ff41-4ddc-bdda-3f9442d91271?query=Update%20MARC%20authority%20record%20by%20010%20%24a%20match&sort=name)
Expected outcome: Record updated
Actual outcome: Discarded with the below error message. I can reproduce this issue on snapshot when I have the same job profile setup in snapshot. However on snapshot, it will update the record if I have no action profile assigned to non-matches.
{"error":"A new MARC-Authority was not created because the incoming record already contained a 999ff$s or 999ff$i field"}