Bug 10687 - Delete erroneous tags 68a and 68b on default MARC21 auth framework
Summary: Delete erroneous tags 68a and 68b on default MARC21 auth framework
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Cataloging (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low trivial (vote)
Assignee: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
QA Contact: Marcel de Rooy
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-08-06 01:20 UTC by Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
Modified: 2014-05-26 21:04 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Bug 10687 - Incorrect tab information for tags 86a and 86b on default MARC21 auth framework (9.49 KB, patch)
2013-08-06 01:31 UTC, Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 10687 - Incorrect tab information for tags 68a and 68b on default MARC21 auth framework (9.55 KB, patch)
2013-08-24 15:40 UTC, Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 10687 - Delete erroneous tags 68a and 68b on default MARC21 auth framework (17.21 KB, patch)
2013-09-17 18:16 UTC, Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 10687 - Delete erroneous tags 68a and 68b on default MARC21 auth framework (17.31 KB, patch)
2013-09-23 12:54 UTC, Marcel de Rooy
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Delete erroneous tags 68a and 68b on default MARC21 auth framework (17.29 KB, patch)
2013-09-25 13:07 UTC, Paola Rossi
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-08-06 01:20:31 UTC
Tab information for subtags of 86a and 86b is incorrect.
They are listed on tab 0, when they belong to tab 6.
Comment 1 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-08-06 01:31:27 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Marcel de Rooy 2013-08-22 13:14:38 UTC
Bernardo:
Could you provide a link to LOC for the description of these fields?
I was looking for 68a History note, but I can't find it.
Thanks.
Comment 3 Marcel de Rooy 2013-08-22 13:16:52 UTC
Please note also that your commit message and title also refer to 86?
Comment 4 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-08-24 15:40:05 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 5 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-08-24 15:40:46 UTC
(In reply to M. de Rooy from comment #3)
> Please note also that your commit message and title also refer to 86?
Ooops! Fixed commit message and description.
Comment 6 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-08-24 15:52:05 UTC
(In reply to M. de Rooy from comment #2)
> Bernardo:
> Could you provide a link to LOC for the description of these fields?
> I was looking for 68a History note, but I can't find it.
> Thanks.

Marcel:
Sorry but I can't, I couldn't find any information about those tags.
They are in the framework since Nov 8 2007, a patch by thd
I think that they could be removed, but the policy is not to remove anything.

Perhaps they are a typo, or are a strange and old set of tags, really don't know.
Regards
Comment 7 Marcel de Rooy 2013-09-16 08:46:47 UTC
(In reply to Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel from comment #6)
> Marcel:
> Sorry but I can't, I couldn't find any information about those tags.
> They are in the framework since Nov 8 2007, a patch by thd
> I think that they could be removed, but the policy is not to remove anything.
> 
> Perhaps they are a typo, or are a strange and old set of tags, really don't
> know.

Thanks, Bernardo. In this case I would still go for removing them and bypassing the 'policy'. Wrong tags should not be kept in the framework for historical reasons imo; the policy apparently is there to prevent deletion of old tags.
Comment 8 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-09-17 18:16:32 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 9 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-09-17 18:17:42 UTC
Marcel, I changed the patch and description.
Now, it removes 86a and 86b.
Comment 10 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-09-17 21:18:31 UTC
(In reply to Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel from comment #9)
> Marcel, I changed the patch and description.
> Now, it removes 86a and 86b.

Sorry again, removes 68a and 68b.
Comment 11 Marcel de Rooy 2013-09-23 12:54:36 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 12 Marcel de Rooy 2013-09-23 13:01:25 UTC
QA Comment:
With reference to earlier comments about deleting tags.
Works. Looks good to me. No complaints from qa tools.

Fixed some 86s left in the commit message, Bernardo :)

Note that we still have 68a and 68b now in some mysql translation folders. My personal opinion on that is that we should not put the burden to keep these translated files up-to-date on the shoulders of someone improving the English files. (In that regard I started a development with using an i18n function, but until now that did not raise a lot of enthusiasm yet :) )

If the RM agrees to push this one, we could open at least another report inviting the "language maintainers" to do their share while hoping for improvements in this area..

Passed QA
Comment 13 Katrin Fischer 2013-09-23 16:32:18 UTC
This was missing a sign off when it got QA'd. I am switching back to 'needs signoff' so it gets on the radar of testers. Please switch to 'passed QA' if testing is successful.
Comment 14 Paola Rossi 2013-09-25 13:07:32 UTC
Created attachment 21442 [details] [review]
Delete erroneous tags 68a and 68b on default MARC21 auth framework

The patch is signed off against 3.13.00.021 master
Comment 15 Paola Rossi 2013-09-25 13:11:56 UTC
I try to pass to QA passed status
Comment 16 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-09-25 13:22:57 UTC
(In reply to Paola Rossi from comment #15)
> I try to pass to QA passed status

You can try, but I think that is for QA team to do :)
(we can change to Failed QA, but not passed QA)

Thank you for signing! 
I revert to Signed Off
Comment 17 Katrin Fischer 2013-09-25 13:26:17 UTC
Hi Bernardo - Paola was right in this case to set Passed QA (see comment 13) :)
Comment 18 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-09-25 13:30:53 UTC
Sorry Paola and thanks Katrin.
I need to read better :)
Comment 19 Katrin Fischer 2013-09-25 13:31:56 UTC
Exceptions... always a bit problematic :)
Comment 20 Galen Charlton 2013-09-25 15:02:05 UTC
For what it's worth, I've figured out the origin of the 68a and 68b tags -- the authority frameworks try to merge the MARC21 authority and MARC21 classification formats.

The MARC21 authority format had obsolete 685 and 686 tags, overlapping fields with those tags defined in the classification format.  Whoever put together the original framework SQL created the 68a and 68b tags to reconcile this, but since 68a/68b fields would never get used in real life, I can't say I see the point of it.

The MARC21 classification format is primary used by libraries that actually maintain classification schemes.  Since the Library of Congress is not running Koha, I think it would be reasonable to remove all of the classification format tags from the MARC21 authority frameworks, or at the very least put them in their own auth_type.  That would be a topic for another bug, of course.

This is a long-winded way to say that I agree that the 68a and 68b tags should be removed.  Since removing them from the translations of the frameworks SQL is essentially a mechanical operation, I'll push a follow-up that does exactly that.
Comment 21 Galen Charlton 2013-09-25 15:16:43 UTC
Pushed to master.  Thanks, Bernardo!
Comment 22 Tomás Cohen Arazi 2013-11-13 16:27:05 UTC
This patch has been pushed to 3.12.x, will be in 3.12.7.

Thanks Bernardo!