Archived Data Import Topics
- Jennifer Eustis
Introduction
This page is meant to track archived topics that are now closed. When a topic from The Data Import Tracker closes, then remove it from that page of current issues to this spreadsheet below.
How to contribute to other people's discussion topics:
Do not add detail to closed or discussed topics as your comments may be overlooked. In this situation, it might be best to Add your details as a new topic and reference the previous topic.
To contribute to an existing topic. Add a new paragraph to the description column.
@mention yourself at the beginning of the paragraph
How to indicate you are also interested in a topic:
@mention yourself in the "Interested parties" column and add your institution name
How are topics archived:
When a topic status is set to closed by it's "Owner". The topic must also be moved to the Data Import Topic Tracker Archive.
Copy the topic and paste it at the top of the Archived topics page that is nested under this page
Delete the topic from this page
Closed Topics
Status | Topic | Description/use case | Date Added | Provided By (Name/Institution) | Interested Parties | Has Been Discussed (Link to agenda/minutes) | Jira Link | Action Required | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CLOSED | MARC-MARC Matching Enhancements | MARC-MARC matches and MARC-Inventory matches have differing use cases. Pairing a MARC-MARC match with a more specific MARC-Instance or MARC–Holdings or MARC–Item match allows for identifying a specific record to be updated, or confirms that a new record is needed.
We want to ensure that MARC-MARC matching works properly for repeatable and non-repeatable fields, especially 0XX/9XX fields, and that they can pair well with Inventory submatches. In scope:
Out of scope:
Use case(s):
| 2020-05-13 | All | All | More Use Cases and scenarios | ||
| 2 | closed | Data Import removes duplicate 856s in SRS | Overview: When updating an SRS record via Data Import, some MARC fields are duplicated while others are de-duped without notification or guidelines. Steps to Reproduce:
Expected Results: The SRS record contains duplicate 856 fields. Additional Information: We know that Data Import does not de-dupe the 903 field, for example, during an update but it does the 856 field. Data Import jobs which create new SRS records includes the duplicate 856 fields. This raises several questions:
From testing, there appears to be no difference between de-duping of the 856 when field protections are applied or not.
| 2023-06-13 | @Corrie Hutchinson (Unlicensed) | All | 2024-1-17 Data Import Subgroup meeting 2024-1-10 Data Import Subgroup meeting
| Need to define what deduplication means Clarify expectations Deduping in the UI vs SRS Deduping the incoming record | |
| 3 | CLOSED | Adding MARC modifications to imports with update actions creates broken records | Overview: Steps to Reproduce:
Expected Results: Overlaying the record works. The MARC is modified as described in the profile and the instance and SRS are updated. Actual Results: The instance is not updated. A modified SRS record is created but still has the original OCLC 001 and 003. QuickMARC will not work on the record. Additional Information: An example of an instance with this issue: https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/inventory/view/53e28701-dccc-49be-a01d-9adaa15f4cb6?query=neuromancer&sort=title&xidtype=0dd718cf-a09a-4f1c-be6a-0cf0de58b424 Job profiles
BE Notes:
Note for QAs:
| 2022-08-04 | @Jenn Colt | All |
|
| |
| 4 | CLOSED | Adding MARC modifications to single record overlay doesn't respect field protections | Overview: When a MARC modification action is added to the end of the single record overlay job, protected fields from the existing MARC SRS are removed rather than from the incoming file. Steps to Reproduce:
Expected Results: The existing and protected fields should remain in the record. Actual Results: The protected fields have been removed. Additional Information:
| 2023-08-23 | @Jennifer Eustis | All | Functionality audit being prepared in DI lab | ||
| 5 | CLOSED | Single record overlay creates duplicate OCLC # / 035 | Overview: When "Overlay source bibliographic record' is employed for the first time, duplicate 035 fields are created. Steps to Reproduce:
Expected Results: The bibliographic record and instance are updated with the latest OCLC version. Records tested in bugfest-orchid: in523951 and in2486915 (screenshots of before overlay and after are attached) Duplicate data causes issues with integrations and other functions that rely on the OCLC# as a match point.
| 2023-04-12 | @Corrie Hutchinson (Unlicensed) | All |
|
| |
| 6 | CLOSED | Not able to use the system generated match profiles | I am attempting to create a new job profile for single record import to get rid of the junk fields. I was able to do this a while back on our test tenant and today I was finally able to get around to creating it on our production tenant.
| 2023-09-14 |
|
|
|
| |
| 7 | CLOSED | Data Import log displays ambiguous information for successful matches on anything but 999i/instance uuid | f your match profile matches incoming MARC 020 on instance ISBN, and the incoming MARC record matches an instance, the reported status in the log of the SRS record will be Updated if the MARC record also contains a 999-ff-i matching the instance's UUID, but Created if the incoming MARC record does not contain a 999-ff-i. In both cases the status reported for the instance in the log is Updated.
| 2022-05-30 |
|
|
|
| |
| 8 | closed | data import sorts protected fields out of order after update | Field protections moves the protected field to the first Nxx field. For instance, if the protected field is a 541, the protected 541 becomes the first of all 5xx tags. (see screen shot attached.)
| 2023-05-08 |
|
|
|
| |
| 9 | CLOSED | Job summary: error column does not display errors | When there is any error related to an instance/authority/orders/invoice, the error column does not display it. | 2024-01-25 |
|
|
|
| |
| 10 | CLOSED | Field mapping profiles: state of the final form fields is not set | When switching between Folio record types fields with the same name do not reset the state (value, dirty, etc.), although the field values are equal to the initial. Current workaround: start over/refresh page | 2021-06-30 |
|
|
|
| |
| 11 | CLOSED | Incorrect quantity is displayed in the cell of no action and error rows at the individual import job's log | The '1' number of Instance is displayed in cell in the row with the 'No action' and 'Error' rows header in the 'Summary table' at the individual import job's log. | 2024-01-19 |
|
|
|
| |
| 12 | CLOSED | The status of srs marc is created after match+modify action | Expected Results: The status of SRS MARC is 'Updated' in the Import log after uploading MARC file for update. | 2023-03-07 |
|
|
|
| |
| 13 | CLOSED | PMSystem displayed as source in quickmarc view when record was created by non matches action of job profile | "PMSystem" displayed as source (instead of User's last and first name) in "Edit MARC authority record" view when record was created by "Non-matches" action of job profile. | 2023-03-07 |
|
|
|
| |
| 14 | CLOSED | Single record overlay creates duplicate oclc #/035 | When "Overlay source bibliographic record' is employed for the first time, duplicate 035 fields are created. ** | 2023-04-12 |
|
|
|
| |
| 15 | CLOSED | Invoice level adjustments do not work | When loading an EDIFACT invoice using a field mapping profile with invoice-level adjustments, the adjustments error | 2021-03-29 |
| @Kimberly Pamplin |
|
| |