Bug 41535 - UNIMARC fields used for Bundles are wrong
Summary: UNIMARC fields used for Bundles are wrong
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Cataloging (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 38093
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2026-01-07 09:59 UTC by Arthur Suzuki
Modified: 2026-01-07 13:17 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Attachments
Bug 41535: Fix UNIMARC fields used for bundles (3.01 KB, patch)
2026-01-07 13:08 UTC, Arthur Suzuki
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Arthur Suzuki 2026-01-07 09:59:52 UTC
According to the Unimarc manual :
https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/unimarc/manuel-unimarc-format-bibliographique/#Bloc4XX

In the host record, links to bundled items should be found in 464 rather than 462.

In the marc record of a bundled item, the link to the host record should be in the 462 instead of 461.

461 is already used to identify the series title (Enola Holmes, Harry Potter).
Comment 1 Mathieu Saby 2026-01-07 12:44:44 UTC
Shouldn't the symmetrical relationship of 464 be 463? I get this impression when reading https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/B463_fre.pdf and https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/B464_fre.pdf

Question may be off topic (and I suppose also applies to MARC21): all these fields can exist independently of Koha's "bundle" function. They may be present in records imported from Sudoc, BNF or other sources. Is Koha able to differentiate between and handle the two cases differently (links created in Koha <> links inherited from a source record)?
Comment 2 Mathieu Saby 2026-01-07 12:44:44 UTC
Shouldn't the symmetrical relationship of 464 be 463? I get this impression when reading https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/B463_fre.pdf and https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/B464_fre.pdf

Question may be off topic (and I suppose also applies to MARC21): all these fields can exist independently of Koha's "bundle" function. They may be present in records imported from Sudoc, BNF or other sources. Is Koha able to differentiate between and handle the two cases differently (links created in Koha <> links inherited from a source record)?
Comment 3 Arthur Suzuki 2026-01-07 13:08:32 UTC
Created attachment 190987 [details] [review]
Bug 41535: Fix UNIMARC fields used for bundles

Test plan :
1 - Without patch : Set EasyAnalyticalRecords to 1
2 - Create a Parent record with 1 item with a barcode.
3 - Edit the record to make it a collection (edit record and set the 7th character as "c" in the 000/leader).
4 - Create another record (call it "Child") with 1 item with a barcode as well.
5 - On the Parent record holdings table, click on "manage bundles"
6 - Add the child item with "Add Marc Link" enabled (using child-item's barcode).
7 - Check MARC view on the Parent Record, child items data should be in a 462 field.
8 - Check MARC view on the Child record, host record data should be in a 461 field.
9 - Apply patch and restart_all
10 - Edit Parent and Child records and remove the links in 461/462.
11 - repeat step 6
12 - in Parent record the child item data should now be in 464
13 - in Child record the parent item data should now be in 462
Comment 4 Arthur Suzuki 2026-01-07 13:17:04 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Saby from comment #2)
> Shouldn't the symmetrical relationship of 464 be 463? I get this impression
> when reading
> https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/
> B463_fre.pdf and
> https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/
> B464_fre.pdf

that's a good point, about the marc fields, as soon as the parent record is the highest level parent record it can be 462.
I don't think we use multiple level of bundles in Koha so, 462 seems fine to me.

> Question may be off topic (and I suppose also applies to MARC21): all these
> fields can exist independently of Koha's "bundle" function. They may be
> present in records imported from Sudoc, BNF or other sources. Is Koha able
> to differentiate between and handle the two cases differently (links created
> in Koha <> links inherited from a source record)?

About this, Koha bundle feature will creates or remove 46x with item and biblionumber (see other bugs in the dependency tree). As thoses are specificaly Koha's identifiers, I don't think other links from other sources would be impacted.