Related: 15594 MArc260 has been replaced by 264 (RDA) and the improvement of xslt display for 260 has not been moved to 264 As it happened with 260, now 264 is a repeteable field, but it displays in the wrong way in OPAC and staff xslt copied from bug 15594 Sequence of MARC 264 subfields different on XSLT result list and detail page (both in staff client and OPAC) when there are repeating subfields $a and/or $b. For example: On MARC cataloguing screen it is entered as: $aNew York :$bHarperCollins ;$aMelbourne :$bCollins,$c2016 is displayed as: New York : Melbourne : HarperCollins ; Collins, 2016 It needs to match the order it is entered on the MARC cataloguing screen.
Created attachment 157307 [details] [review] Bug 34020: Preserve order of subfields in 264 display When ordered $a$b$a$b$c in the MARC object, 264 subfields are displayed $a$a$b$b$c. This goes against the standard. This patch preserves the order. 1) Edit a record and add/update a 264 fields to have subfields a, b, a, b, c in that order 1) Search for record in staff and opac, see subfields displayed in order "aabbc" in results 2) View the details page for the record in staff and opac, note same order 3) Apply the patch, restart all 4) Confirm staff and opac, results and details now follow the order of the subfields in the record's field
Created attachment 157308 [details] [review] Bug 34020: Add spans to subfields The 260 field has spans for each subfield, we should provide the same for 264 To test: 1 - Apply patch 2 - Inspect the record 264 display on staff and opac, results and details 3 - Confirm spans are constructed correctly and named sensibly
Created attachment 157313 [details] [review] Bug 34020: Preserve order of subfields in 264 display When ordered $a$b$a$b$c in the MARC object, 264 subfields are displayed $a$a$b$b$c. This goes against the standard. This patch preserves the order. 1) Edit a record and add/update a 264 fields to have subfields a, b, a, b, c in that order 1) Search for record in staff and opac, see subfields displayed in order "aabbc" in results 2) View the details page for the record in staff and opac, note same order 3) Apply the patch, restart all 4) Confirm staff and opac, results and details now follow the order of the subfields in the record's field Signed-off-by: Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org>
Created attachment 157314 [details] [review] Bug 34020: Add spans to subfields The 260 field has spans for each subfield, we should provide the same for 264 To test: 1 - Apply patch 2 - Inspect the record 264 display on staff and opac, results and details 3 - Confirm spans are constructed correctly and named sensibly Signed-off-by: Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org>
dang.. you beat me to it
Created attachment 157317 [details] [review] Bug 34020: Preserve order of subfields in 264 display When ordered $a$b$a$b$c in the MARC object, 264 subfields are displayed $a$a$b$b$c. This goes against the standard. This patch preserves the order. 1) Edit a record and add/update a 264 fields to have subfields a, b, a, b, c in that order 1) Search for record in staff and opac, see subfields displayed in order "aabbc" in results 2) View the details page for the record in staff and opac, note same order 3) Apply the patch, restart all 4) Confirm staff and opac, results and details now follow the order of the subfields in the record's field Signed-off-by: Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org> Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Created attachment 157318 [details] [review] Bug 34020: Add spans to subfields The 260 field has spans for each subfield, we should provide the same for 264 To test: 1 - Apply patch 2 - Inspect the record 264 display on staff and opac, results and details 3 - Confirm spans are constructed correctly and named sensibly Signed-off-by: Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org> Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Doh.. we clashed and came up with pretty much exactly the same solution! Passing QA on yours.
Created attachment 157319 [details] [review] Bug 34020: (QA follow-up) Indentation fix The middle 'if' block was indented a level deeper than expected. Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Pushed to master for 23.11. Nice work everyone, thanks!
Enhancement not pushed to 23.05.x