Recordings are posted Here (2022+) and Here (pre-2022) Slack channel for Q&A, discussion between meetings
Requirements details Here Additional discussion topics in Subgroup parking lot
Attendees: Ann-Marie Breaux (Deactivated) Timothy Watters leeda.adkins@duke.edu Jennifer Eustis
Lotus
- Lotus Folijet planning: dashboard where you can see the current scope and status of Data Import work for Lotus
- Current Data Import feature development dashboard and bugfix support
Morning Glory
- Morning Glory Folijet and Spitfire planning: dashboard where you can see the current scope and status of Data Import work for Morning Glory
Agenda topics:
Environment for Import/Export/quickMARC Labs - Confirm the following
- Keep tied to the most recent released version? (e.g. Kiwi with HF1-2)
- Environment will not exceed ca. 50K records in Inventory
- Purging will happen on-demand. When purging, purge Inventory and SRS data, Import/Export logs, but DO NOT purge any reference data (including all Import/Export profiles)
- If SMEs have any issues, start with Ann-Marie Breaux (Deactivated). Dev team managing the environment is Kitfox.
Lotus Bugs
- Lotus Bugfest:
- Testing began this week; any issues?
- Ann-Marie still writing additional tests that will be available this week and next week
- Set up your own logon
MARC field protections apply to MARC modifications when they should not
Ann-Marie: build a few draft tests in Lotus BugFest and have SMEs add the details
- Create a script for libraries to refresh Instances against an updated MARC-Instance map
- First iteration this week; get it to do the right thing, then work on speed
- Script would be deployed on demand
- Would act on all instances with Source = MARC
- Release version would not matter
- Any other questions or requirements?
- MARC Field protection:
- Can we assume that LDR, 002-009 fields would never need field protection
- If any do need field protection (maybe 006 or 007), can we always assume * for data? (Ind1, Ind2, Subfield n/a)
- Record matches are not decreased when additional match conditions are added to a job profile
- See example in bug; Devs need additional examples of multi-tiered matches
- Make first match as specific as possible (retrieve no more than 90 results), then secondary match to narrow that further
- Kiwi release notes: add as known issue
- Lotus release notes: add that this is partially addressed in Lotus fix, will aim to change/remove restriction in Morning Glory
Extend MatchValueLoader implementations to allow filtering according to Qualifiers and MatchCriteria:
Identifier matching should allow for qualifiers, compare part, and match criteria
Are there any specific match use cases that you want to use that you cannot (NOT MARC-MARC right now; that's next)
Any qualifier/begins/contains matches that are not working but that are needed?
- MARC-MARC matching
- Lotus: Allows for any field in a MARC record except
- Are these needed in Morning Glory?
- Matching for 100-899 fields? (I think they work, but not heavily tested yet)
- Repeatable fields (e.g. 024, 035)
- Incoming record: Only first version of the field is considered (doublechecking with the dev on whether it's the first field that has the requested indicator(s) and/or subfield, or just the first field, regardless of indicators/subfield)
- If it takes Ind 1, Ind 2, Subfield into account (in addition to the data)
- Does FOLIO need to check all incoming 024s against all 024s in the existing SRS records? Or just the first?
- Wildcards for Ind 1, Ind 2, Subfield (repeatable or non-repeatable fields)
- Needed?
- Additional info from A-M/Igor:
Let's pretend that these fields are in an incoming record: (Field Ind1 Ind2 Subfield)
- 024 _ _ $a 12345
024 1 1 $a 45678
024 1 _ $x 67890
024 2 2 $x 67890
- 024 _ _ $a 12345
And the fields in the existing SRS record are
024 2 2 $x 67890
024 _ _ $a 12345
024 1 _ $x 13579
024 1 1 $a 45678
024 1 _ $x 67890
I understand that for repeatable fields, FOLIO Lotus only pays attention to the first incoming field, not the rest, but compares to any matching fields in the existing record.
Now - setting up different match profiles, I want to be sure I understand the logic that is in place now:
If the match profile is 024 _ _ $a:
- Matches, because the incoming first 024 looks for an existing 024 with blank indicators and $a and the same value (even though that is the second 024 in the existing record)
If the match profile is 024 1 1 $a:- Matches, because the first incoming 024 with indicators 11 and $a (which is the second 024 in the incoming file) looks for an existing 024 with indicators 11 and $a and the same value (which is the fourth 024 in the existing record)
If the match profile is 024 1 _ $x:- Matches, because the first incoming 024 with indicators 1_ and $x (which is the third 024 in the incoming file) looks for an existing 024 with indicators 1_ and $x and the same value (which is the fifth 024 in the existing record)
If the match profile is 024 2 2 $x:- Matches, because the first incoming 024 with indicators 22 and $x (which is the fourth 024 in the incoming file) looks for an existing 024 with indicators 22 and $x and the same value (which is the first 024 in the existing record)
- However!
Let’s pretend the incoming record looks like this:- 024 1 1 $a 12345
024 1 1 $a 45678
- 024 1 1 $a 12345
- And the existing SRS record is
- 024 1 1 $a 45678
- If the match profile is 024 1 1 $a, SRS does not match, even though “024 1 1 $a 45678” is present in both incoming and existing records.
SRS starts searching a field, that is specified in match profile, scrolling the incoming record from the very beginning, as usual, and takes the first occurrence of <024 1 1 $a>. The first occurrence is “024 1 1 $a 12345". So, SRS takes “024 1 1 $a 12345” and can’t find it in the existing record
- Lotus Bugfest: