Bug 2222

Summary: Field auth_subfield_structure.frameworkcode should NOT be removed
Product: Koha Reporter: Chris Cormack <chris>
Component: MARC Authority data supportAssignee: Bugs List <koha-bugs>
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME QA Contact:
Severity: normal    
Priority: P5 - low CC: m.de.rooy
Version: Main   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
GIT URL: Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: --- Documentation contact:
Documentation submission: Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
Circulation function:
Attachments: Bug 2222: Adjust kohastructure
Bug 2222: Adjust SQL en marc21/unimarc yml and sql file
Bug 2222: Adjust SQL fr-FR Obligatoire file authorities_normal_marc21.sql
Bug 2222: Adjust SQL fr-FR unimarc complet Obligatoire default
Bug 2222: Adjust SQL fr-FR unimarc complete Obligatoire norme
Bug 2222: Adjust SQL fr-FR unimarc lecture Obligatoire norme
Bug 2222: Database revision
Bug 2222: Modify C4::AuthoritiesMarc::GetTagsLabels and callers
Bug 2222: Database revision
Bug 2222: Modify C4::AuthoritiesMarc::GetTagsLabels and callers

Description Chris Cormack 2010-05-21 00:47:57 UTC


---- Reported by rch@liblime.com 2008-06-06 10:22:26 ----

UNIMARC-specific :
to allow for bt - nt relationships, the authorities framework holds an authtypecode associated with a subfield definition.
it stores the authtypecode in auth_subfield_structure.frameworkcode,
which is a varchar(8) , not a varchar(10) .



---- Additional Comments From nengard@gmail.com 2009-12-23 17:59:01 ----

This bug hasn't been touched in nearly a year, please revisit and test and close if appropriate.



--- Bug imported by chris@bigballofwax.co.nz 2010-05-21 00:47 UTC  ---

This bug was previously known as _bug_ 2222 at http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=2222

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 rch@liblime.com.

Comment 1 Marcel de Rooy 2022-03-31 14:09:37 UTC
This is still actual.
We do not need frameworkcode in this table, we have authtypecode.
Let's remove this field now !
Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2022-03-31 19:47:42 UTC
Could there be a use case for multiple frameworks for an auth_type or would that not work anyway?
Comment 3 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 06:45:43 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #2)
> Could there be a use case for multiple frameworks for an auth_type or would
> that not work anyway?

That does not work. An authtype is a framework. I am not aware of a realistic use case for this scenario.
Comment 4 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:29 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 5 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:33 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 6 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:38 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 7 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:42 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 8 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:46 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 9 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:50 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 10 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:54 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 11 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 09:59:58 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 12 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 10:00:40 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 13 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 10:03:01 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 14 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 10:03:06 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 15 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-01 10:04:09 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 16 Marcel de Rooy 2022-04-04 11:11:01 UTC
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #1)
> This is still actual.
> We do not need frameworkcode in this table, we have authtypecode.
> Let's remove this field now !

This was a dumb exercise. There are a few see also fields that need it.
Title changed accordingly :)