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 |
|
| |
| 16 | CLOSED | Invoice line level adjustments don't work | When loading an EDIFACT invoice using a field mapping profile with invoice-level adjustments, the adjustments error | 2021-03-29 |
| @Kimberly Pamplin |
|
| |
| 17 | CLOSED | Data import incorrectly maps Resource type for no display constant generated | See steps in JIRA | 2023-04-19 |
|
|
|
| |
| 18 | CLOSED | Status descending sort on Data Import view all page not working | In Honeysuckle Bugfest, on the Data Import View all, the status sort ascending works, but not descending | 2020-12-09 |
|
|
|
| |
| 19 | CLOSED | MARC holdings update log has additional empty row | MARC Holdings update log has additional empty row. If two "MARC Holdings" records are updated by one job, then 2 additional empty rows will be displayed. | 2023-05-01 |
|
|
|
| |
| 20 | CLOSED | Data Import field mapping profile is saved with data deleted from the system | The user can save a mapping profile with data that has been deleted from the system. | 2022-08-19 |
|
|
|
| |
| 21 | closed | Alert modal with error message is displayed on page after entering '##*' characters and clicking on search button | see steps in JIRA | 2022-06-10 |
|
|
|
| |
| 22 | closed | DI Log: Title missing but status reads updated | see JIRA | 2023-10-24 |
|
|
|
| |
| 23 | CLOSED | RRT - Invoices don't display fund codes | Institution specific - MI State Univ./ Library of Michigan | 2024-01-04 |
|
|
|
| |
| 24 | closed | Job profile with POL/VRN match cascade does not finish properly | Some Inventory records (Instances/Holdings/Items) get created when orders are opened, depending on the Inventory setting in the POL. During testing of POL/VRN matching, I noticed that some holdings being updated by importing MARC Bibs were having their source changed from FOLIO to MARC. We need to ensure this DOES NOT happen. | 2022-05-25 |
|
|
|
| |
| 25 | CLOSED | Poppy data import log does not include links to records for SRS updates. | For SRS updates with no instance update, the changes to the import logs have resulted in no record links in the log. Before the log indicated that the instance was updated and included a link to the instance. Now, the log indicates that the SRS record is updated, but there is no link. I am guessing it is because there is no SRS record per se in FOLIO. Can we revisit the decision to not display the instance update status with a link? Or add a link to the instance to the SRS updated status? PPT from Data Import subgroup work: From this spreadsheet it appears that the instance should also be updated and provide the record link: .
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 26 | CLOSED | RRT, 5C match bug | Problem of match that didn't match | 2023-09-28 |
|
|
|
| |
| 27 | CLOSED | Duplicate records in incoming file causes problems after overlay process with no error reported | When overlaying instance records, if the incoming file has duplicate records and therefore multiple incoming matches for one match in FOLIO, the record that was overlaid in FOLIO cannot be opened using quickMARC. Note: In this scenario the incoming file has the duplicate records and therefore duplicate match points. FOLIO does not have duplicates. | 2021-12-15 |
|
|
|
| |
| 28 | CLOSED | Enforce an order to deletion for Data Import profiles | There needs to be an enforced order to deletion for Data import profiles to prevent this or there should be a confirmation window that lets you delete associated match/action profiles with the job profile if they aren't in use in another Job profile
| 2024-01-31 |
|
| Developers will look into this | ||
| 29 | Closed | There needs to be a warning or error to stop the job when a job contains no action profiles. | If a job doesn't have any actions, nothing happens and there is a risk that the records are corrupted. | 2021-02-08 | @Sara Colglazier @Jenn Colt @Christie Thomas |
| Ryan will ask what the behavior is for when actions are missing and you try to run a job or if you can edit a job with no actions. Behavior now in FOLIO snapshot | ||
| 30 | CLOSED | When importing EDIFACT files, invoices lines aren't in order | When importing an Edifact file, the invoices lines aren't in order. | 2024-02-06 | Corrie Hutchinson, Jennifer Eustis | @Kimberly Pamplin |
| https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/MODDATAIMP-995 |
|
| 31 | CLOSED | Data import job profile will not create multiple holdings/items when conditional mapping is used in field mapping profiles | Overview: The Poppy release introduced functionality to create multiple holdings and items from a single MARC bib, using data from 9xx fields in the MARC record (see UXPROD-2741: Import of MARC Bibs to create/update multiple holdings and items: BE workCLOSED ) However, if the holdings or item field mapping profile contains a conditional mapping (e.g. Permanent holdings location = 945$a; else “LOCCODE”), only the first specified 9xx field will be used to create a single holdings/item.
|
| @Molly Driscoll |
|
| Request to be added to Poppy CSP 2 | |
| 32 | CLOSED | Item creation using Data Import is missing data | Overview : When importing a MARC bibliographic record with 9xx fields designating order, holdings, and item record data, the enumeration and copy number fields of the item record fail to populate as instructed. | 2024-02-27 | @Corrie Hutchinson (Unlicensed), @Christie Thomas |
|
|
| |
| 33 | CLOSED | Quantity = 0 in POL for order format equal to electronic | Overview : When creating orders with an order format of electronic, an instance, and a holdings records from a MARC bibliographic record using Data Import, the quantity in both the ‘Cost details' and ‘Location’ section of the POL is ‘0' despite the field mapping profile instructing it be '1’. A nearly identical profile for order format equal to print does not display this behavior. | 2024-02-27 | @Corrie Hutchinson (Unlicensed), @Christie Thomas |
|
|
| |
| 34 | CLOSED | DI Jobs stall when matching on a holdings and/item nested under an instance |
| 2024-03-01 | @Christie Thomas |
| CSP 3 Poppy | ||
| 35 | CLOSED | Import profile with Instance match to POL and Vendor Reference Number not working | Overview: Vendor records were received containing the POL and Vendor Reference Number (VRN) are not matching to the source = FOLIO Instance records that the GOBI API created through the Orders app.
| 2023-08-03 | @Lynne Fors | All |
| Fix is in Quesnelia Formerly UIDATIMP-1506 |