Bug 13263 - Printing Callnumber in Koha 3.16.04.000.
Summary: Printing Callnumber in Koha 3.16.04.000.
Status: CLOSED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Label/patron card printing (show other bugs)
Version: 3.16
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low normal (vote)
Assignee: Chris Nighswonger
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-11-17 10:04 UTC by Jerwyn
Modified: 2016-06-21 21:36 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Wrong Callnumber Format (541.33 KB, image/bmp)
2014-11-17 10:04 UTC, Jerwyn
Details
Koha version 3.12.01 generated (26.41 KB, image/png)
2014-11-30 13:36 UTC, Jerwyn
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jerwyn 2014-11-17 10:04:40 UTC
Created attachment 33610 [details]
Wrong Callnumber Format

Check the callnumber, whenever it is exported as a PDF file.

Koha doesn't follow the format the way you want to print it. Character doesn't split normally and all letters are in caps.

Please see attached file for reference.



Thanks!
Comment 1 Jerwyn 2014-11-30 13:36:50 UTC
Created attachment 34028 [details]
Koha version 3.12.01 generated

In addition to this the result should be something like this.

This SS shows is generated using Koha version 3.12.01

Hope someone can help me on this.

Thank you!
Comment 2 Mark Tompsett 2014-12-13 03:53:52 UTC
Comment on attachment 33610 [details]
Wrong Callnumber Format

I believe the font in question requires upper case.
But I would have expected better line breaks:
FIC.
P48A
1998

FIC.
D64A
1997

FIC.
H56DA
2000

FIL.
RC862
D53
1990

FIL.
RC862
D53
1990

Though, I'm not sure about the last two.
Comment 3 Jonathan Druart 2015-07-10 14:34:07 UTC
Lowering the severity.

Jerwyn, could you detail?
It worked as you expected in 3.12 but not in 3.16, that's it?
Comment 4 Chris Nighswonger 2015-07-10 16:00:44 UTC
If these are LLC call numbers, we split based on the standard and have chosen not to attempt to accommodate local variations.

In any case this is most likely corrected by bug 10821.
Comment 5 Jerwyn 2015-07-11 04:28:29 UTC
Hi Jonathan!

Sorry this case is closed, I just forgot to go over this report.

The institution that we support is using lcc however, they are not using ( . ) in their cutters. What we advised them is to change the lcc format the "item record" to ddc so that we can generate the callnumber correctly.

After we have seen the bug 10821 Chris has mentioned, yes we just found out how does it works! Cutters must have ( . ) in lcc format. Otherwise the resolution for this is to change it to ddc if an institution doesn't put ( . ) at the beginning of the cutters.

Thank you and best regards,