To recreate: - set your framework so the 100$a is mandatory but the 100 as a whole is not - open a new record in the advanced editor - save the record without a 100$a - edit framework to make the 100 mandatory as well as the 100$a - open a new record - try to save without a 100$a, get an error It doesn't break anything to have to mark the tag required as well as the subfield, but it's more work and it's confusingly different from how we enforce these in the regular editor.
Agreed
This is still an issue as of 23.05 and is very confusing. And since the mandatory field (100$a in this example) does not even display in a new record in advanced editor, but then immediately triggers an error when saving in basic editor, it causes issues when staff are adding new records. Perhaps even just adding a note that it must be marked mandatory in order to display in advanced editor?
On the other hand, in bug 32722 UNIMARC wants the exact opposite, to have the current behavior of the advanced editor be the behavior of the basic editor, because they have subfields that are mandatory if any other subfield of the tag is used, but having the tag is not mandatory. 100$a is actually a perfect example of the use-case for that: although MARC21 doesn't have the concept of required subfields, a personal name without a name is meaningless (and awkward to deal with if you autocreate an authority from it), while a bib record without a personal name as the main entry is very common, so it would be convenient to be able to require that $a be non-blank if 100 is used at all, but not require that it be used.