bibliographic record merge
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evergreen |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
2.12 |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Evergreen 2.3.3
We are finding that when merging bibliographic records that in some instances but not all instances it is deleting the volume field record. At the database level, I was able to determine this..
MARC Record 1 with 2 copies and two different call numbers for branch 1 is merged with MARC Record 2 with with a call number and a copy from branch 1. The asset.call_number table is updated with the correct bib id but the row for one of the call numbers gets updated with a deleted as true. This occurs on one of the call numbers not both. The deleted column on the copy record remains false. It happens inconsistently but may be if the value in the label column is equal to the label column in both but one of the rows has a different prefix. I need to test this further.
tags: | added: pullrequest |
tags: | added: signedoff |
Changed in evergreen: | |
milestone: | none → 3.0.1 |
Changed in evergreen: | |
milestone: | 3.0.1 → 3.0.2 |
Changed in evergreen: | |
status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
This sounds similar to what we recently fixed with bug 1074484 where deleted CNs were being used on bib merge. That said, I think it's slightly different if you're saying the prefixes are distinct, which makes me wonder if there's a larger issue where we need to check for prefix/suffix in relation to the labels when determining merge choices.