Since CSRF procetion form without CUD action must use GET instead of POST Fix value_builder/unimarc_field_210c.tt
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
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.
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]"
You may. The goal is to test the form is working
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 ?
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.