To recreate: 1. Set a MARC framework to use an Authorized Value for a 952 field, like publicnote or non-public note. 2. Edit an item in that framework to use that AV. 3. Now look at the display on the item detail page ( detail.tt ), notice the code displays not the description. 4. Look at at the same item on additem.tt. Here it correctly displays the description.
Is it a regression?
Can reproduce this too under 21.11
I don't think it ever worked. These fields are thought to be text, not AV codes. There is no code in the various templates to check for both options.
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #3) > I don't think it ever worked. These fields are thought to be text, not AV > codes. There is no code in the various templates to check for both options. Then if we want to fix that it could be done on top of bug 33568, if I correctly understood the problem... embedding the stringified version of the attributes it seems straightforward.