The bulkmarcimport.pl uses replace instead of changing line, which difficults the track of the errors found in the migration. Solution: replace \r to \n
Created attachment 13675 [details] [review] BUG 9144 modified: mist/migration_tools/bulkmarcimport.pl Replaced \r to \n.
Created attachment 13912 [details] [review] Bug 9144 - bulkmarcimport.pl - Problem identifying errors Replace \r with \n for newline in output for bulkmarcimport.pl \r is the newline character for OS X, \n is the newline character for Linux. Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
We use \n for newlines everywhere else in Koha, so this is a sensible change.
QA comment: one letter patch, passes QA !
Created attachment 14027 [details] [review] Bug 9144 - bulkmarcimport.pl - Problem identifying errors Replace \r with \n for newline in output for bulkmarcimport.pl \r is the newline character for OS X, \n is the newline character for Linux. Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com>
I am inclined to push this patch, since I agree with Vitor's assessment that it would probably be easier to spot errors when using \n than when using \r. However, the sign off and QA appear to be predicated on the idea that this patch increases consistency, which it does not do. In light of this, I would request that Kyle and Paul confirm whether they would like their sign off and QA (respectively) to stand.
(In reply to comment #6) > I am inclined to push this patch, since I agree with Vitor's assessment that > it would probably be easier to spot errors when using \n than when using \r. > However, the sign off and QA appear to be predicated on the idea that this > patch increases consistency, which it does not do. In light of this, I would > request that Kyle and Paul confirm whether they would like their sign off > and QA (respectively) to stand. I stand by my SO, for ease of readability. I suppose if we want full consistency, we would need to find every \r and \n in Koha and change them to \r\n.
(In reply to comment #6) > I am inclined to push this patch, since I agree with Vitor's assessment that > it would probably be easier to spot errors when using \n than when using \r. > However, the sign off and QA appear to be predicated on the idea that this > patch increases consistency, which it does not do. In light of this, I would > request that Kyle and Paul confirm whether they would like their sign off > and QA (respectively) to stand. Jared, I don't understand what you're saying. (ie= I don't see where I said this patch improves consistency) back to passed QA, this patch is OK for me
This patch has been pushed to master. (Paul, you didn't say explicitly that you were QAing the patch with the idea that it improved consistency, but that was implied by the commit message and I wanted to make sure you wholly approved)
Pushed to 3.10.x will be in 3.10.1