Skip to:

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

Update of linked and protected field via "Data import" leads to link deletion

Description

Overview: The link between protected field of "MARC bibliographic" and "MARC authority" record will be deleted if update this field via "Data import".
Precondition:
1. Following rule must be configured in the "MARC field protection" pane:
"100 * * * *"
2. Following links should be created:
2.1. 100 and 700 fields of "MARC Bibliographic" (

) record with "MARC authority" record (

)

Steps to Reproduce:

  1. Log into Orchid Bugfest FOLIO environment as User with following permissions:
    Data import: Can upload files, import, and view logs
    Inventory: All permissions
    MARC Authority: View MARC authority record
    quickMARC: Can Link/unlink authority records to bib records
    quickMARC: View, edit MARC bibliographic record
    Settings (Data import): Can view, create, edit, and remove
    UI: Data export module is enabled

  2. Open "Instance" record with linked and protected field via "Inventory" app.

  3. Export "Instance" record by clicking on "Actions" on second pane >> "Export instances (MARC)"

  4. Go to "Data export" and download the exported record.

  5. Open downloaded via "MarcEdit"

  6. Update:
    "100" field (which is linked and protected)
    "245" field
    "700" field (which is linked only).

  7. Save the record >> Upload it via "Data import" using "Update MARC Bib records by matching 999 ff $s subfield value" job profile.

  8. Open the updated record via "quickmarc" in "Inventory".

Expected Results: Linked and protected field remain link and doesn't change. Only "245" field is updated.
Actual Results: 
1) Link was deleted from "100" field and it's displayed as linked because if this issue

2) "245" field is updated.
3) "700" field remains the link and wasn't updated.

Additional Information:
1) See attached screencast for the case with not repeatable field:

2) In the case of repeatable field (for example "700") original field will be duplicated and unlinked on back-end.
See attached screencast:

Interested parties:  

CSP Request Details

None

CSP Rejection Details

None

Potential Workaround

None

Attachments

23

Checklist

hide

TestRail: Results

Activity

Show:

Valery_Pilko March 31, 2023 at 5:40 PM

Verified on Orchid BF environment - work as expected (same as on Snapshot).
I'm closing this jira.
cc:  

Valery_Pilko March 28, 2023 at 6:07 PM

Here are the test results:
Test 1 - Edit protected and linked fields using update MARC Bib profile:
Fixed, links don't delete after update or protected and repeatable linked field.
See attached screencasts:

Note: handling of $9 should be fixed in scope of  (Poppy). It will fix the issue when duplicated field looks like linked on UI (see screenshot).

Test 2 - Can't delete protected and linked fields using update MARC Bib profile
Fixed, links don't delete after deleting protected and linked fields in uploaded file.
See attached screencast:

Test 3 - Use "Overlay source bibliographic record" on record which has linked and protected fields
Fixed, linked and protected fields were not updated (remain links)
See attached screencast:

Test 4 - Edit protected and linked fields using update MARC Bib profile with ignoring field protection setting.
Works as expected, handling of $9 should be fixed in scope of  (Poppy). It will fix the issue when duplicated field looks like linked on UI.
See attached screencast:

Khalilah Gambrell March 27, 2023 at 4:58 PM

Thanks - should we create user stories for the issues that did not pass.

Valery_Pilko March 27, 2023 at 11:45 AM
Edited

HI ,  
There are the testing results:
Test 1 - Edit protected and linked fields using update MARC Bib profile

Protected fields

Existing record

Record that was used for update

Expected result

Actual result

Passed?

"100 * * 0 *"
"240 * * 0 *"
"700 * * 9 *"

Linked:
100, 240, 650, both 700

1) Edit controlled and not controlled subfields of 100 field ($a and $e).
2) Edit controlled "$0" of "240" field.
3) Add not controlled subfield to 650 field.
4) Edit not controlled subfield of first 700 field.
5)Edit controlled subfield of 700 field ($a) and delete $0.

1) "100" didn't change
2) "240" didn't change
3) "650" updated
4) First "700" - still linked and duplicated (duplicated and updated field hasn't linked)
5) Second "700" still linked and duplicated (duplicated and updated field hasn't linked)

1) "100" didn't change
2) "240" didn't change4
3) "650" updated
4) Original 700 - as expected;
Duplicated 700 - have $9 (looks like linked on UI)
5) Original 700 - Unlinked (only on BE side);
Duplicated 700 - have $9 (looks like linked on UI)

1-3) Yes
4 and 5) No

Test 2 - Edit protected and linked fields using update MARC Bib profile

Protected fields

Existing record

Record that was used for update

Expected result

Actual result

Passed?

"100 * * 0 *"
"700 * * 9 *"

Linked:
100, 240, first 700

Delete linked and protected fields: "100" and "700".

No changes to existing record

Links were deleted on BE for "100" and "700" fields

No

 

Test 3 - Use "Overlay source bibliographic record" on record which has linked and protected fields

Protected fields

Existing record

Record that was used for update

Expected result

Actual result

Passed?

"100 * * 0 *"
"650 * * 0 *"
"700 * * 9 *"

Linked:
100, 240, 650, first 700

Use "Overlay source bibliographic record" with following OCLC:
"1030444295"

1) "100" didn't change
2) "240" deleted
3) "650" didn't change
4) First "700" - didn't change and could be duplicated (duplicated and updated field hasn't linked)

1 - 3) as expected
4) Link was deleted (the field wasn't updated)

 

1-3) Yes
4) No

 

 
Test 4 - Edit protected and linked fields using update MARC Bib profile with ignoring field protection setting.

Protected fields

Existing record

Record that was used for update

Expected result

Actual result

Passed?

"100 * * 0 *"
"240 * * 0 *"
"650 * * 9 *"
"700 * * 9 *",
 
Following fields marked as override in mapping profile:
100, 240, 700

Linked:
100, 240, 650, both 700

1) Edit controlled and not controlled subfields of 100 field ($a and $e).
2) Delete not repeatable linked "240" field.
3) Add not controlled subfield to 650 field.
4) Delete repeatable linked and ** protected field (first 700 field).
5)Edit controlled and not controlled subfields of 700 field ($a, $0, $i) 

1) "100" updated
2) "240" deleted
3) "650" didn't change and duplicated (duplicated field is Not linked)
4) First 700 was deleted
5) Second 700 was updated and unlinked

1) "100" updated
2) "240" deleted
3) "650" didn't change and duplicated (duplicated field displayed as linked)
4) First 700 was deleted
5) Second 700 was updated and unlinked

1,2) Yes
3) No
4, 5) Yes\

UPD: I've used these files for testing:

 

Khalilah Gambrell March 24, 2023 at 4:06 PM

Thanks . QA team and I will create documentation.

Done

Details

Assignee

Reporter

Labels

Priority

Story Points

Sprint

Development Team

Spitfire

Fix versions

Release

Orchid (R1 2023) Bug Fix

RCA Group

Lack of testing

Affected releases

Orchid (R1 2023)

TestRail: Cases

Open TestRail: Cases

TestRail: Runs

Open TestRail: Runs
Created March 17, 2023 at 6:54 PM
Updated April 11, 2023 at 7:02 AM
Resolved March 29, 2023 at 2:32 PM
TestRail: Cases
TestRail: Runs