Bug 32804 resolves an bug where an overlaid item could have its' biblionumber changed. Fixing this has the effect of enabling items to be updated even if the item is on a different record. This can be wanted or unwanted behavior depending on the situation. It would be good if the cataloger could choose which behavior is preferred on a per-batch bases.
Created attachment 146392 [details] [review] Bug 32902: Update Schema File [DO NOT PUSH]
Created attachment 146394 [details] [review] Bug 32902: Update Schema File [DO NOT PUSH]
Created attachment 146395 [details] [review] Bug 32902: Add option to only overlay if matched item is on matched record Bug 32084 resolves an bug where an overlaid item could have its' biblionumber changed. Fixing this has the effect of enabling items to be updated even if the item is on a different record. This can be wanted or unwanted behavior depending on the situation. It would be good if the cataloger could choose which behavior is preferred on a per-batch bases. Test Plan: 1) Grab the sample marc record file from bug 32804 2) Upload this file, chose to match on biblionumber and replace matching item if any matching record was found 3) Import the batch 4) Note the item was replaced 5) Revert the import 6) Change the rule to replace matching items if matching item is on matching record 7) Apply different matching rules 8) Import the batch into the catalog 9) Note the item was not replaced
The file from bug 32804 contains 3 items, 2 that match the biblio record and 1 that does not. When I stage the file with the choice "replace matching items if any matching record was found," all 3 items update as expected on import. But when I stage the file with "Replace matching items if matching item is on matching record" then none of the 3 items update, including the 2 on the matching record. In the latter case, should the two items on the matching biblio record not also update?
Also, reverting the import at step 5 actually deleted the item with the mismatched biblionumber. I haven't had a chance to test what happens here without your patch, this may be a separate existing bug. > > Test Plan: > 1) Grab the sample marc record file from bug 32804 > 2) Upload this file, chose to match on biblionumber and replace matching > item if any matching record was found > 3) Import the batch > 4) Note the item was replaced > 5) Revert the import > 6) Change the rule to replace matching items if matching item is on > matching record > 7) Apply different matching rules > 8) Import the batch into the catalog > 9) Note the item was not replaced
This behavior is bug 14210, "Manage staged MARC records deletes replaced item when undoing import into catalog." (In reply to Andrew Fuerste-Henry from comment #5) > Also, reverting the import at step 5 actually deleted the item with the > mismatched biblionumber. I haven't had a chance to test what happens here > without your patch, this may be a separate existing bug. > > > > Test Plan: > > 1) Grab the sample marc record file from bug 32804 > > 2) Upload this file, chose to match on biblionumber and replace matching > > item if any matching record was found > > 3) Import the batch > > 4) Note the item was replaced > > 5) Revert the import > > 6) Change the rule to replace matching items if matching item is on > > matching record > > 7) Apply different matching rules > > 8) Import the batch into the catalog > > 9) Note the item was not replaced