Bug 35283 - XSLT 583 Action note is missing subfield h and x in staff interface
Summary: XSLT 583 Action note is missing subfield h and x in staff interface
Status: Pushed to oldstable
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Templates (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low minor (vote)
Assignee: David Cook
QA Contact: Katrin Fischer
URL:
Keywords:
: 29470 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2023-11-08 02:10 UTC by David Cook
Modified: 2023-11-14 22:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: Trivial patch
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
23.11.00,23.05.06,22.11.12


Attachments
Bug 35283: Add missing subfields h and x to field 583 for staff XSLT (1.73 KB, patch)
2023-11-08 02:25 UTC, David Cook
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 35283: Add missing subfields h and x to field 583 for staff XSLT (1.78 KB, patch)
2023-11-09 16:26 UTC, Owen Leonard
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 35283: Add missing subfields h and x to field 583 for staff XSLT (1.84 KB, patch)
2023-11-09 21:34 UTC, Katrin Fischer
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 35283: Add missing subfield h to action note 583 in OPAC detail page (1.42 KB, patch)
2023-11-09 21:34 UTC, Katrin Fischer
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description David Cook 2023-11-08 02:10:51 UTC
In the staff interface, the 583 action note should show subfield "h".
Comment 1 David Cook 2023-11-08 02:16:00 UTC
*** Bug 29470 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 David Cook 2023-11-08 02:16:54 UTC
It's also missing subfield x. Rather than make 2 patches for bug 35283 and bug 29470 we may as well get it done in 1 fell swoop (with fewer merge conflicts).
Comment 3 David Cook 2023-11-08 02:25:24 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 4 Owen Leonard 2023-11-09 16:26:30 UTC
Created attachment 158749 [details] [review]
Bug 35283: Add missing subfields h and x to field 583 for staff XSLT

This change adds the missing subfields h and x to field 583 for
the detail XSLT in the staff interface.

Test plan:
0. Apply the patch and koha-plack --reload kohadev
1. Go to http://localhost:8081/cgi-bin/koha/cataloguing/addbiblio.pl?biblionumber=29
2. Click on tab "5"
3. Scroll down to 583 and click on "ACTION NOTE" to expand subfields
4. Fill in using the following example:
   583	0#$adowngraded$c19910110$hJoe Smith$otitle$xfrom secret FRD to confidential NSI
5. Click "Save"
6. Note that the "Action note" now shows "Joe Smith" and "from secret
   FRD to confidentail NSI"

Signed-off-by: Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org>
Comment 5 Owen Leonard 2023-11-09 16:27:32 UTC
Note that by design if you fill in 583$z the other subfields will not display. When testing leave subfield z empty.
Comment 6 Katrin Fischer 2023-11-09 21:34:55 UTC
Created attachment 158773 [details] [review]
Bug 35283: Add missing subfields h and x to field 583 for staff XSLT

This change adds the missing subfields h and x to field 583 for
the detail XSLT in the staff interface.

Test plan:
0. Apply the patch and koha-plack --reload kohadev
1. Go to http://localhost:8081/cgi-bin/koha/cataloguing/addbiblio.pl?biblionumber=29
2. Click on tab "5"
3. Scroll down to 583 and click on "ACTION NOTE" to expand subfields
4. Fill in using the following example:
   583	0#$adowngraded$c19910110$hJoe Smith$otitle$xfrom secret FRD to confidential NSI
5. Click "Save"
6. Note that the "Action note" now shows "Joe Smith" and "from secret
   FRD to confidentail NSI"

Signed-off-by: Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
Comment 7 Katrin Fischer 2023-11-09 21:34:58 UTC
Created attachment 158774 [details] [review]
Bug 35283: Add missing subfield h to action note 583 in OPAC detail page

$x is nonpublic note, so it makes sense to only display it in staff, but
$h is Jurisdiction and we should show it in OPAC and staff alike.

Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
Comment 8 Tomás Cohen Arazi 2023-11-10 14:02:44 UTC
Pushed to master for 23.11.

Nice work everyone, thanks!
Comment 9 Fridolin Somers 2023-11-11 07:40:00 UTC
Pushed to 23.05.x for 23.05.06
Comment 10 David Cook 2023-11-14 01:02:47 UTC
While it's possible that "h" could have private information, this field has an indicator that prevents the note from showing if it's private, plus the subfield can be hidden from the OPAC using the MARC bibliographic frameworks, so sounds good about including it.
Comment 11 Katrin Fischer 2023-11-14 07:25:45 UTC
(In reply to David Cook from comment #10)
> While it's possible that "h" could have private information, this field has
> an indicator that prevents the note from showing if it's private, plus the
> subfield can be hidden from the OPAC using the MARC bibliographic
> frameworks, so sounds good about including it.

But then couldn't have any field private information? There is no note on the field that indicates any internal use in the documentation and from the example it seems like you'd want to see that (if you want your 583 to display):

$h - Jurisdiction

Name of a person, an institution, or a position or function within an institution, in whom or in which responsibility for an action is vested.
583 	##$atransfer$c19770613$huniversity archives
Comment 12 Pedro Amorim 2023-11-14 15:03:01 UTC
Nice work everyone!

Pushed to 22.11.x for next release
Comment 13 David Cook 2023-11-14 22:24:42 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #11)
> But then couldn't have any field private information? There is no note on
> the field that indicates any internal use in the documentation and from the
> example it seems like you'd want to see that (if you want your 583 to
> display):
> 
> $h - Jurisdiction
> 
> Name of a person, an institution, or a position or function within an
> institution, in whom or in which responsibility for an action is vested.
> 583 	##$atransfer$c19770613$huniversity archives

The "Name of a person" part is what bothers me. It seems strange for the name of a staff member to be shown to the public. It just seems implicitly internal to me. 

But I think I see what you're saying. Yeah, I think a number of these subfields could have private information. That's why I think it's not a problem hehe. 

I think that's why they have the First Indicator controlling "Private" and "Not private".