At the OPAC, the sort field is "year" and at the intranet is "copyrightdate". To reproduce: Create a list at the OPAC and select the sort field 'year'. Go to the list management page at the intranet: the sort field "copyrightdate" is not selected by default.
Created attachment 13771 [details] [review] Bug 9167: Standardize the sort field copyrightdate for lists How to reproduce the issue: Create a list at the OPAC and select the sort field 'year'. Go to the list management page at the intranet: the sort field "copyrightdate" is not selected by default. How to test this patch: Check the issue is not still present with this patch. Create several lists at the OPAC with different sort field. Check results are consistent on both interfaces. Check the selected sort field is selected on the edit page. Check there is no regression. What this patch does: - change the way to send the selected sort field to the templates - remove the select tests on the new list page (useless) - the copyrightdate sortfield is named "copyrightdate" everywhere - update your database : set virtualshelves.sortfield = 'copyrightdate' if virtualshelves.sortfield = 'year' http://bugs.koha-community.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9167
To apply AFTER Bug 8032
Created attachment 13902 [details] [review] [SIGNED_OFF] Patch 9167
QA Comment: Works as advertised. Improves code. Small inconsistency in text: When editing a list in opac, the option is called Year. When editing in staff, it is called Copyrightdate. But on the shelves display in staff it is called Year again. Maybe send a followup? Passed QA
This patch has been pushed to master.
(In reply to comment #4) > Small inconsistency in text: When editing a list in opac, the option is > called Year. When editing in staff, it is called Copyrightdate. But on the > shelves display in staff it is called Year again. Maybe send a followup? Hi Marcel, What is the correct label? "Year" or "Copyright date"?
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > Hi Marcel, > What is the correct label? "Year" or "Copyright date"? Jonathan: I think that Year (or even Publication year) is a better match. Because we sort on the year in biblio.copyrightdate which is derived from 260c (at least in MARC21). See also the code in Biblio.pm for extracting a year from 260c into the copyrightdate field. At least, it is not a date. So, this field name in biblio is not that accurate :)