Uploaded image for project: 'generate-marc-utils'
  1. generate-marc-utils
  2. GMU-7

Missing holdings statement causes permanent location to be omitted in the export

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Template:
    • Sprint:
      Firebird Sprint 121
    • Story Points:
      5
    • Development Team:
      Firebird

      Description

      Overview:
       When a holdings record doesn't have a holdings statement, the permanent location is not included in the export if both properties were mapped in the mapping profile to the same field but different subfields, if holdings statement  subfield proceeds permanent location subfield.  The problem doesn't occur if the properties are mapped to the different MARC fields.
       

      Steps to Reproduce:

      1. Create a mapping profile that includes Source record storage and holdings.  Include holding statement and permanent location in the same field starting with holding statement.  Bugfest example of the mapping profile: https://bugfest-juniper.folio.ebsco.com/settings/data-export/mapping-profiles/view/a9d51730-7f1b-4350-a278-e7bece3cda33?sort=-updated%2Cname
      2. Create a job profile that is associated with the mapping profile from the prior step. Bugfest example of the job profile:  https://bugfest-juniper.folio.ebsco.com/settings/data-export/job-profiles/view/755e736a-3236-494b-b3cf-a455b2a670b8?sort=name
      3. Start export using the job profile

      Expected Results:

      Specified in the mapping profile field is always present, even if holding statement is not populated in the record
      Actual Results:

      If the holding statement is missing, the field is not a part of the export, even if the permanent location is there.  

      Additional Information:

      • Attaching file used to trigger the export and the file generated by the export.
      • If the fields are mapped to separate files the record is exported as expected
      • I tried with other fields combination (call number for example) and the behavior is as expected as well
      • With the reversed order of the subfield the behavior is also as expected. 
        URL:
        Interested parties:

        TestRail: Results

          Attachments

            Issue Links

              Activity

                People

                Assignee:
                Oleksandr_Bozhko Oleksandr Bozhko
                Reporter:
                magdaz Magda Zacharska
                Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                5 Start watching this issue

                  Dates

                  Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                    TestRail: Runs

                      TestRail: Cases