Summary: | Have same display/hidden options for authority subfields like bibliographic subfields | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Marjorie Barry-Vila <marjorie.barry-vila> |
Component: | MARC Authority data support | Assignee: | Galen Charlton <gmcharlt> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | jheltibridle, koha, pablo.bianchi, patrick.robitaille, ztajoli |
Version: | Main | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Change sponsored?: | --- | Patch complexity: | --- |
Documentation contact: | Documentation submission: | ||
Text to go in the release notes: | Version(s) released in: | ||
Circulation function: |
Description
Marjorie Barry-Vila
2014-01-17 16:47:35 UTC
*** Bug 12284 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** +1 We would like to see this improvement to the authority types as well. At the moment, if you add a new authority record, only the mandatory fields are uncollapsed. If we were to add the same visibility options that are part of the marc frameworks, that would greatly help when creating new authorities. What is the criteria to set this as low enhancement? The manual says auth fw are just like biblio fw, doesn't mention this limitation. We should file another bug for this? Some libraries manage important metadata which shouldn't be visible, for privacy reasons. |