Bug 40307 - Use GET in form of value_builder/unimarc_field_210c.tt
Summary: Use GET in form of value_builder/unimarc_field_210c.tt
Status: Needs Signoff
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Cataloging (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low normal
Assignee: Fridolin Somers
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2025-07-04 12:00 UTC by Fridolin Somers
Modified: 2025-10-14 11:48 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
GIT URL:
Initiative type: ---
Sponsorship status: ---
Comma delimited list of Sponsors:
Crowdfunding goal: 0
Patch complexity: Trivial patch
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
Circulation function:


Attachments
Bug 40307: Use GET in form of value_builder/unimarc_field_210c.tt (1.98 KB, patch)
2025-07-04 12:38 UTC, Fridolin Somers
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Fridolin Somers 2025-07-04 12:00:25 UTC
Since CSRF procetion form without CUD action must use GET instead of POST

Fix value_builder/unimarc_field_210c.tt
Comment 1 Fridolin Somers 2025-07-04 12:38:55 UTC
Created attachment 183792 [details] [review]
Bug 40307: Use GET in form of value_builder/unimarc_field_210c.tt

Since CSRF procetion form without CUD action must use GET instead of POST
Fix value_builder/unimarc_field_210c.tt

Test plan :
1) Use UNIMARC catalog
2) Define unimarc_field_210c value builder on 210$c
3) Define an autority type EDITORS with heading on 200$b
4) Create an autority of this type
5) Index this new autority
6) Edit a biblio record and launch 210$c value builder
7) Search for new autority
8) Click on 'Choose'
9) Heading is pasted in 210$c
Comment 2 David Nind 2025-07-05 02:25:44 UTC
I attempted to test, but I'm not familiar enough with UNIMARC authorities to follow steps 3 to 4.

Step-by-step instructions for these steps would help.

Otherwise, I'll leave for others more knowledgeable to test.
Comment 3 Mathieu Saby 2025-10-11 13:27:07 UTC
I'm going to test it
preliminary question : Can I use this "CO" type for the test plan?

210 is for "publisher", not "editor". And there is already in standard configuration an authority type "CO" (Corporate Body Name) with summary "[210a ][ (210c)][. 210b][ -- 210d][ ; 210e][ ; 210f][ -- 210x][ -- 210z][ -- 210y]"
Comment 4 Fridolin Somers 2025-10-14 07:08:53 UTC
You may.
The goal is to test the form is working
Comment 5 Mathieu Saby 2025-10-14 11:38:08 UTC
Oh I misunderstood the authority type config page. I thought the "210" for CO authority type was the bibliographic field. It is the field of the auth record.

So it cannot work with a CO  authority

But I don't understand why an authoriry with a 200 heading should be used in 210$c of bibliographic record.

Authorities with a 200 heading are for Personnal names (https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/unimarc/manuel-unimarc-format-notices-autorite/#Bloc%202XX ), and 210$c is the Publisher. Most of the time the publisher will be a corporate name, not a personnal name.

Besides, I never worked in a library using authority to control the publisher field. Is that feature really used ? Is there something similar in MARC21 ?
Comment 6 Mathieu Saby 2025-10-14 11:48:25 UTC
I checked in UNIMARC manual for 210 and 214. Those fields does not seem to be designed to be controlled by an authority. 
If that were the case, they would include a subfield for the authority identifier, such as fields 6xx or 7xx.
I have the impression that this is a specific adaptation for Koha.