|
Description
Jonathan Druart
2019-03-13 19:32:39 UTC
Created attachment 86586 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Add new script to add MARC fields with date formatted stringsto bib records Say you want to add, into a new MARC fields, the following string: 2/2019/Mar-03/13 Depending on today's date. Test plan: Use the script after with the different options (see --help option for the list) Sponsored-by: Orex Digital Ths script allow a better integration with vufind, and allow to create hierarchy facets by date 1st level year, 2 level mont, third level day NOw the script add the same date to all records but 1. Each record should have its onw date, perhaps import from a marc tag? 2. the script should only apply to records without 905, not recreated Created attachment 87435 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Add the --unless-exists option to the script It will avoid to create the fields several times if it is not needed. (In reply to Hugo Agud from comment #2) > Ths script allow a better integration with vufind, and allow to create > hierarchy facets by date 1st level year, 2 level mont, third level day > > NOw the script add the same date to all records but > 1. Each record should have its onw date, perhaps import from a marc tag? How would be formatted the date? > 2. the script should only apply to records without 905, not recreated Done in the last patch, see the new options --unless-exists. Created attachment 87588 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Add new script to add MARC fields with date formatted stringsto bib records Say you want to add, into a new MARC fields, the following string: 2/2019/Mar-03/13 Depending on today's date. Test plan: Use the script after with the different options (see --help option for the list) Sponsored-by: Orex Digital Signed-off-by: Hugo Agud <hagud@orex.es> Created attachment 87589 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Add the --unless-exists option to the script It will avoid to create the fields several times if it is not needed. Signed-off-by: Hugo Agud <hagud@orex.es> Created attachment 88532 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Add new script to add MARC fields with date formatted stringsto bib records Say you want to add, into a new MARC fields, the following string: 2/2019/Mar-03/13 Depending on today's date. Test plan: Use the script after with the different options (see --help option for the list) Sponsored-by: Orex Digital Signed-off-by: Hugo Agud <hagud@orex.es> Created attachment 88533 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Add the --unless-exists option to the script It will avoid to create the fields several times if it is not needed. Signed-off-by: Hugo Agud <hagud@orex.es> Can you explain the use case for this one? It seems a rather specific script. This script it is designed for a better integration of koha database into discoveries, the info of this script is used by discoveries for creating hierarchical Facets. This script created a data like 2019-04-29 into a formatted tag that allows to create hierarchical Facets, in a way that end users may seach for records by year, month or day at the end. Which date would you index like that? The record creation date? I have never seen anything like that in discoveries. It still appears very specific. usually the creation date yes, and yes again it is specific but for press search is really useful FAIL pod
*** ERROR: Apparent command =item not preceded by blank line in file misc/add_date_fields_to_marc_records.pl
Created attachment 89546 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Fix POD error "Apparent command =item not preceded by blank line" I think what Hugo is referring to with the hierarchical facets is this: https://vufind.org/wiki/configuration:facets So it seems that VuFind can build hierarchical facets on all values that are concatenated with / and an ending /. So the 'relationship' to VuFind is there, but it's not very strong :) This script is more general as it allows to add arbitrary formatted date information to any MARC subfield. But it's also a bit limited, as it will use today's date. I have some notes: 1) The misc directory is already a bit chaotic. I would suggest to move this into a new directory in misc where we could keep such scripts in the future. Maybe something like: marc_tools, data_manipulation, marc_manipulation ? 2) If I pass nothing in, the script is run in dry mode. I think it would be better to display the help, since the needed parameters to actually do something are missing. 3) When I run it with -h it advertises: perl add_date_fields_to_marc_records.pl --help But the help displayed doesn't explain the options like it's supposed to looking at the script itself. Can you please take a look at fixing the help? Created attachment 89616 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Fix POD error 1. "Apparent command =item not preceded by blank line" 2. Display the options for help 3. Do not run if no --field passed (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #15) Thanks Katrin for taking a look at this one. POD (2 and 3) fixed. About the path I would prefer to let the RM pick the correct location. IMO it will be weird to have only this script in a new directory. (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #17) > (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #15) > > Thanks Katrin for taking a look at this one. > > POD (2 and 3) fixed. > > About the path I would prefer to let the RM pick the correct location. IMO > it will be weird to have only this script in a new directory. I think starting with one would be ok, we have to start somewhere. And moving them later is more painful for people, as they have to fix their paths. (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #18) > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #17) > > (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #15) > > > > Thanks Katrin for taking a look at this one. > > > > POD (2 and 3) fixed. > > > > About the path I would prefer to let the RM pick the correct location. IMO > > it will be weird to have only this script in a new directory. > > I think starting with one would be ok, we have to start somewhere. And > moving them later is more painful for people, as they have to fix their > paths. Leaving this to the RM indeed :) 1) Can you add a usage example for the WHERE condition? I tried: ./add_date_fields_to_marc_records.pl --where 'biblionumber <10' --field='245$a=1/test/%Y/%b-%m' It should tell which table is queried. It also feels a little odd that it seems like you have to enter --where 'where...'? It seems the where argument on rebuild_zebra.pl works without. 2) The use of unless-exists was not clear to me from the description, I think an example below the option description would be helpful too. Apart from documentation this seems to work fine. If you update that, I am willing to PQA :) Created attachment 89626 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Add more POD and fix --where We should not need the "WHERE" keyword to have the same behavior as existing script (rebuild_zebra.pl) Created attachment 89627 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Clarify with an example the usage of --unless-exists (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #19) Hope it makes more sense now. Created attachment 89680 [details] [review] Bug 22509: Clarify with an example the usage of --unless-exists Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de> RM, please see comment 18 for some discussion about where to store this script! Nice work! Pushed to master for 19.11.00 Enhancement not pushed to 19.05.x |