---- Reported by nicolas.morin@biblibre.com 2008-06-26 05:58:28 ---- When I edit marctagstructure.pl for a given field (not subfield), the UI tells me I can select the name of an authorized value list, so that the indicators will be limited to the authorised value list. I created a list of authorized values with 0 and 1, and linked it to UNIMARC field 200. But when I edit a record, I don't get a pull down list for the indicators, and I can enter any value I want: 0, 2, 9, whatever. the framework doesn't seem to use the list. Seems to work OK for subfields, not for fields. ---- Additional Comments From nengard@gmail.com 2009-12-23 17:59:11 ---- This bug hasn't been touched in nearly a year, please revisit and test and close if appropriate. ---- Additional Comments From nicolas.morin@biblibre.com 2009-12-28 09:20:04 ---- Unfortunately still an issue. But I'm not quite sure what the intended feature was initially... Reassigning to hdl. --- Bug imported by chris@bigballofwax.co.nz 2010-05-21 00:48 UTC --- This bug was previously known as _bug_ 2280 at http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=2280 Actual time not defined. Setting to 0.0 The original reporter of this bug does not have an account here. Reassigning to the person who moved it here: chris@bigballofwax.co.nz. Previous reporter was nicolas.morin@biblibre.com.
For MARC21 it's not possible to specify a value list for indicators - I am not sure if UNIMARC is different here? Should this perhaps be an enhancement request instead?
In Unimarc indicator can be specified in a list. But often a specific list for every field. Also for me this is and ENH. But in fact the column 'authorized values' is present and doesn't work.
Hi Zeno, I have changed this to "enhancement" - but I am still a bit confused. In MARC21 authorised values can be linked to subfields - afaik there are no configuration options for indicators. Is it different in UNIMARC or am I not aware of a feature?
In fact I don't speak about 'authorized values' in subfield configuration. But about 'authorized values' in field configuration. The web page explicitly say: If you select a value here, the indicators will be limited to the authorized value list) I have upload a screen capture of the web page
Created attachment 8752 [details] [NOT APPLY] an image to explain comment #4
Comment on attachment 8752 [details] [NOT APPLY] an image to explain comment #4 Hi Zeno, thx for providing the screenshot! I haven't noticed this field before and I think if it's there and not working - we should perhaps move this bug back to be a 'bug'. Having a configuration option without functionality does not make sense.
*** Bug 7149 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #6) > Comment on attachment 8752 [details] > [NOT APPLY] an image to explain comment #4 > > Hi Zeno, > > thx for providing the screenshot! I haven't noticed this field before and I > think if it's there and not working - we should perhaps move this bug back > to be a 'bug'. Having a configuration option without functionality does not > make sense. We should separate each indicator config, and even let people set default values for each framework.
Setting default values for indicators is filed as bug #9701.
This still appears to be valid.
One item for 2 indicators that might have different valid indicators seems silly. Also, if a library went through with this, this would blow up our authorised value categories quite a bit. Would just having 2 fields with a list of valid indicators (space separated) be acceptable? Someone more clever than me might even be able to generate those from the standard to be set by default for the different frameworks.
This is still valid. I would remove that option completely. No one seems to be missing it or it would have been corrected before now. This bug is 10+ years old!
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #11) > One item for 2 indicators that might have different valid indicators seems > silly. Also, if a library went through with this, this would blow up our > authorised value categories quite a bit. > > Would just having 2 fields with a list of valid indicators (space separated) > be acceptable? That sounds reasonable to me. I would love to see that in Koha! > Someone more clever than me might even be able to generate those from the > standard to be set by default for the different frameworks. I'm sure Bernardo could add it to his existing MARC update processing...
I think we should remove the non-functional option of authorised values on the tag configuration page and start fresh if we wanted to add default values for first and second indicators as a separate feature bug. But there is quite a lot to be done after taking a look: - Remove from the GUI - Remove from the methods taking care up updating and adding fields - Remove the database column - Remove from the all the installer files for MARC frameworks The last one I am not sure how to tackle - but if not done, the installer would be broken. Would be happy to get some help there.