Summary: | Custom classification does not sort correctly in shelf browser in OPAC | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Esther Melander <esther.melander> |
Component: | System Administration | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | gmcharlt |
Version: | 24.05 | ||
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
Esther Melander
2024-10-10 17:30:56 UTC
I am not sure if this is a bug. The manual documents the way the "sortable" cn_sort is built. Does the behavior match the description? According to the manual: "For example, a Dewey call number such as ‘636.8/07 SHAW’ will become ‘636_800000000000000_07_SHAW’ in order to be sorted." And: The Dewey filing routine generates a sorted call number by following these rules: - Concatenates classification and item parts. - Converts to uppercase. - Removes any leading or trailing white spaces, and forward slashes (/) - Separates alphabetic prefix from the rest of the call number - Splits into tokens on white spaces and periods. - Leaves first digit group as is. - Converts second digit group to 15-digit long group, padded on right with zeroes. - Converts each whitespace to an underscore. - Removes any remaining non-alphabetical, non-numeric, non-underscore characters. Since the custom classification source used the dewey filing rule and the cn_sort was incorrect, it feels like a bug. When you say "records were updated to use..." - how was this done? And sorry, I misunderstood at first. I thought you were using the generic filing rule at first, but now I understand it was always ddc, but different classification sources set up to use it. The example catalog data was updated on the backend by a data specialist. The records can also be updated by batch item modification. Sounds OK, assuming that the records were "touched" then, not only updated. |