Description
Nick Clemens (kidclamp)
2020-06-29 21:48:50 UTC
Hm I thought that had been fixed by bug 19915 :( nick, do you intend to work on this? Can someone tell me which schema these are? Trying a fix and want to test. I used LOC and they are sorting now as described in the example, will upload a patch. Created attachment 111952 [details] [review] Bug 25897: Use cn_sort for sorting callnumbers in inventory table Instead of using the machine sortable form of the callnumber from cn_sort the table was only sorting on the callnumber. This tries to fix it using the same technique as for sorting the differently formatted dates. To test: - If your database has items with suitably cataloged items, use these. Otherwise you could use the examples from the bug report: - Catalog items with the following barcodes: B 29 V55 1998 B29 .C55 2008 B29 .L24 1983 B29 .L264 1998 B29 .P666 2004 Make sure the LOC is selected in $2 as source of classification This makes sure the sortable form of the callnumber is calculated correctly. - Go to inventory - Search for your items - Before patch, they should sort on callnumber as above, after the patch the correct sort order should be: B29 .C55 2008 B29 .L24 1983 B29 .L264 1998 B29 .P666 2004 B 29 V55 1998 Created attachment 112684 [details] [review] Bug 25897: Use cn_sort for sorting callnumbers in inventory table Instead of using the machine sortable form of the callnumber from cn_sort the table was only sorting on the callnumber. This tries to fix it using the same technique as for sorting the differently formatted dates. To test: - If your database has items with suitably cataloged items, use these. Otherwise you could use the examples from the bug report: - Catalog items with the following barcodes: B 29 V55 1998 B29 .C55 2008 B29 .L24 1983 B29 .L264 1998 B29 .P666 2004 Make sure the LOC is selected in $2 as source of classification This makes sure the sortable form of the callnumber is calculated correctly. - Go to inventory - Search for your items - Before patch, they should sort on callnumber as above, after the patch the correct sort order should be: B29 .C55 2008 B29 .L24 1983 B29 .L264 1998 B29 .P666 2004 B 29 V55 1998 Signed-off-by: Andrew Fuerste-Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com> Created attachment 112892 [details] [review] Bug 25897: Use cn_sort for sorting callnumbers in inventory table Instead of using the machine sortable form of the callnumber from cn_sort the table was only sorting on the callnumber. This tries to fix it using the same technique as for sorting the differently formatted dates. To test: - If your database has items with suitably cataloged items, use these. Otherwise you could use the examples from the bug report: - Catalog items with the following barcodes: B 29 V55 1998 B29 .C55 2008 B29 .L24 1983 B29 .L264 1998 B29 .P666 2004 Make sure the LOC is selected in $2 as source of classification This makes sure the sortable form of the callnumber is calculated correctly. - Go to inventory - Search for your items - Before patch, they should sort on callnumber as above, after the patch the correct sort order should be: B29 .C55 2008 B29 .L24 1983 B29 .L264 1998 B29 .P666 2004 B 29 V55 1998 Signed-off-by: Andrew Fuerste-Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com> Created attachment 112893 [details] [review] Bug 25897: (QA follow-up) Add filters Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com> Works as expected, Passing QA Pushed to master for 20.11, thanks to everybody involved! |