Skip to:

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

SPIKE: Instance & SRS record updates need to honor MARC field protections

Description

Grooming - does this need to be broken into multiple bugs/stories?

Overview: When updating instance records with an implied action of updating the SRS MARC record, field protections entered in Settings need to be honored. Currently the existing SRS MARC is replaced with the new record and the protected fields are erased.

Current workaround: No workaround; existing protected fields are deleted. They must be recreated (if one can remember what was in them).

Steps to Reproduce:

  1. Log into FOLIO-snapshot as diku_admin

  2. Add a MARC field into Settings: Data Import: MARC field protection (ex. field 981, ind 1 = *, ind 2 = *, subfield = *, data = *) and Save.

  3. Import a record using a job profile to create an instance only, and make sure the MARC record has the protected field (ex. 981).

  4. Update the record using a job profile with a match: for matches, update instance, and a MARC record that lacks the protected (ex. 981) field.

Expected Results: The instance updates, and the SRS record updates, with the 981 field from the original record remaining in the updated SRS record.

See examples and additional explanation here: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/display/FOLIJET/MARC+field+protections

Actual Results: The instance updates, and the SRS record updates; however the update wipes out the protected 981 field.

Additional Information: Field protections also need to occur with single-record-import overlays, which may need an additional JIRA, or may be covered by a fix here.

NOTE Once this bug is fixed, review field protection overrides.

CSP Request Details

None

CSP Rejection Details

None

Potential Workaround

None

Attachments

2
  • 28 Apr 2021, 06:31 PM
  • 28 Apr 2021, 06:31 PM

Confluence content

mentioned on

Checklist

hide

TestRail: Results

Activity

Show:

Kateryna SenchenkoApril 20, 2022 at 2:07 PM

Hi ,
The approach was discussed with and - both agree that solution is not ideal, but the most realistic to implement for Morning Glory. So I believe we have a signoff to proceed. However, since we involve post-processing logic here we'll need to take it into account when removing this step in future ARCH-9. Thank you

Ann-Marie BreauxApril 18, 2022 at 3:18 PM

discussed with Folijet BE, , . As soon as signoff from Olamide and Vlad, proceed with story writing and coding.

Ruslan LavrovApril 16, 2022 at 9:22 PM

Results of the investigation described on the page: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1393144

Kateryna SenchenkoMarch 22, 2022 at 2:02 PM

Assigning this ticket to myself to fill in the technical details on how field protection settings implemented at the moment and organise a BE meeting to discuss possible ways to go

Ann-Marie BreauxFebruary 21, 2022 at 3:33 PM

Hi Yes, we'll be working on it in Sprint 135, possibly 134 if we finish releases early enough.

Done

Details

Assignee

Reporter

Labels

Priority

Story Points

Sprint

Development Team

Folijet

Parent

Fix versions

Release

Morning Glory (R2 2022)

RCA Group

Incomplete/missing requirements

Affected Institution

!!!ALL!!!

TestRail: Cases

Open TestRail: Cases

TestRail: Runs

Open TestRail: Runs

Created April 28, 2021 at 6:28 PM
Updated April 4, 2023 at 8:29 PM
Resolved April 18, 2022 at 3:18 PM
TestRail: Cases
TestRail: Runs

Flag notifications