Koha::SimpleMARC::_modify_values and Koha::Items::apply_regex wrapped the
user replacement in a string and ran it through s///ee, so an interpolation
block such as \@{[ system(...) ]} executed arbitrary Perl. Expand the
replacement as data via Koha::Regex::Replacement::expand_template under a
single /e instead, which keeps capture-group replacements working but never
runs the input as code.
Signed-off-by: Sanjar Tulkinov Anvar o'g'li <sanjarbiy11@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@openfifth.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Baptiste Wojtkowski <baptiste.wojtkowski@biblibre.com>
Signed-off-by: Pedro Amorim <pedro.amorim@openfifth.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Fuerste Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Anneli Österman <anneli.osterman@koha-suomi.fi>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Fuerste Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Pedro Amorim <pedro.amorim@openfifth.co.uk>
Before this patch, control fields were not modifiable using this subroutine.
Control fields use character positions instead of subfields. When modifying
control fields, this patch makes the subroutine's parameter "subfield" to indicate
a character position. An example
Koha::SimpleMARC::update_field({
record => $record,
field => '008',
subfield => '2',
values => [09],
});
changes field 008 starting from character position 2 to contain values "09".
This replaces char pos 2 with "0", and char pos 3 with "9".
To test:
1. prove t/SimpleMARC.t
Signed-off-by: David Nind <david@davidnind.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Fuerste Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Anneli Österman <anneli.osterman@koha-suomi.fi>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Fuerste Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Pedro Amorim <pedro.amorim@openfifth.co.uk>
So it is done before the other use statements.
Also uniformize the pattern, must now be:
```
use Modern::Perl;
use base 'Exporter';
BEGIN {
our @EXPORT_OK = qw(subroutine list);
}
```
Rebased-by: Victor Grousset/tuxayo <victor@tuxayo.net>
Bug38936 exported redirect_if_opac_suppressed
Signed-off-by: Victor Grousset/tuxayo <victor@tuxayo.net>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@openfifth.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
The bug 32950 fix introduced a regression that broke copy_field operations
when copying between different fields or when copying a subfield to itself
within the same field.
The original fix correctly handled moving subfields between different
subfields within the same field (e.g., 020$z to 020$a) by using
field_exists() to identify which fields have the source subfield.
However, this logic was applied too broadly:
1. Cross-field operations (e.g., 650$a to 651$a): The fix passed source
field_numbers to _update_subfield for the target field, causing it to
look for non-existent target field positions. This resulted in
insert_fields_ordered creating new fields out of order.
2. Same-field, same-subfield operations (e.g., 952$d to 952$d): The fix
prevented copying to fields that didn't have the source subfield, but
the original behavior was correct for duplicating a subfield to itself.
This patch restricts the bug 32950 logic to only apply when:
- Source and target fields are the same AND
- Source and target subfields are different
Additionally, it ensures field_numbers are not passed to _update_subfield
when copying between different fields.
Test plan:
1. Run prove t/SimpleMARC.t
2. All tests should pass, including:
- Cross-field copy operations (650$a to 651$a)
- Same-field, different-subfield operations (020$z to 020$a)
- Same-field, same-subfield operations (952$d to 952$d)
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@openfifth.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
Moving one subfield to another was failing for repeatable fields where
the field to be moved doesn't exist in the first instance. When moving
subfields within the same field type (e.g. 020$z to 020$a), existing
subfield values in fields that didn't contain the source subfield were
being overwritten with values from other fields.
This patch fixes the issue by determining which fields actually contain
the source subfield and only updating those corresponding target fields,
preserving existing values in fields that don't have the source subfield.
The fix adds logic to _copy_move_subfield to:
1. Use field_exists() to identify which fields have the source subfield
2. Pass these field numbers to _update_subfield for targeted updates
3. Preserve all existing functionality while fixing the data loss bug
Test plan:
1. Create a MARC modification template to move 020$z to 020$a
2. Create a record with multiple 020 fields:
- Some with existing $a values
- Some with $z values to be moved
3. Apply the template
4. Verify existing $a values are preserved
5. Verify $z values are moved to $a only in appropriate fields
6. Verify $z subfields are removed after the move
Signed-off-by: Bernard Scaife <bernard.scaife@openfifth.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Lawlor <blawlor@clamsnet.org>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@openfifth.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
Added head2 right before sub with missing POD
Signed-off-by: Baptiste Wojtkowski <baptiste.wojtkowski@biblibre.com>
Signed-off-by: Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de>
This commit is generated using:
% perl misc/devel/tidy.pl
*within* ktd, to get the same version of perltidy than what will be used
by our CI (currently v20230309).
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de>
Test plan:
1. Apply patch and restart services
2. Create a MARC modification template with the action:
Copy and replace field 001 to 099$a unless 099$a exists
3. Perform a Batch record modification using your MARC modification template from #2
4. Confirm that the template has successfully moved the 001 control field value to the 099$a subfield
Sponsored-by: Education Services Australia SCIS
Signed-off-by: David Nind <david@davidnind.com>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de>
Note: This routine does not check field existence like
ModBiblioMarc does/did (see next patch). So it inserts
a field 005 if it is not present.
Test plan:
Run t/SimpleMARC.t
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Phil Ringnalda <phil@chetcolibrary.org>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Gass <lucas@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de>
The updated code removed the pushing of fields to an array - this caused a bug.
When multiple fields were copied and replaced and there were more fields added than existed originally we were adding the new field to the end, then removing the first occurence of the original field. If we tried to move 2 650 fields to 651 and the record had no 651 we would:
- Delete the first 651, there were none, so nothing happened
- Take the first 650, add it to the end of the 651 group (there were none, so it became the first 651)
- Delete the first 651, which was the field we just copied
- Take the second 650 and add it to the end of the 651 group (whihc had none, because we deleted it)
I re-add the line, but do as suggesed by Phil and reverse the order (unshift vs push)
To test:
1 - Apply other patches
2 - prove -v t/SimpleMARC.t
3 - It fails
4 - Apply this patch
5 - prove -v t/SimpleMARC.t
6 - It still fails, but more tests pass (there's another patch to follow)
Signed-off-by: Phil Ringnalda <phil@chetcolibrary.org>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
This updates the SimpleMARC tests and MarcModificationTemplates
tests to expect the new order of fields
Signed-off-by: Kelly <kelly@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Phil Ringnalda <phil@chetcolibrary.org>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Test plan :
- create a marc modification template which add a new field to a record
- apply that template to some records
- verify that the new field is always appended at the bottom of the record, even if some fields are higher.
- apply patch
- apply template to another set of records
- verify the added field is now ordered within the already existing fields in the records
Signed-off-by: Kelly <kelly@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Phil Ringnalda <phil@chetcolibrary.org>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
To test:
1 - Define a new MARC Modification template with actions:
Copy field 600$a to 942$0
2 - Define a new record like:
LDR 00334nam a22001217a 4500
003 ff
005 20201102111604.0
008 201102b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _ _ ‡cvsd
100 1 _ ‡012345‡aKnuth, Donal Ervin‡d1938
245 _ _ ‡012345‡aThe aty of computer programming‡cDonald E. Knuth
600 _ 0 ‡042‡aComputer programming‡9462
3 - Modify this record using the template above
4 - Note that entire field is copied to 942
5 - Apply patch
6 - Now only subfield 0 is copied
Signed-off-by: David Nind <david@davidnind.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
This patch adds support for regular expression capture groups in
MarcModificationTemplates.
We escape double quotes in the replacement string, then quote the whole
string before applying the `ee` modifier to the final regex application.
See
https://blog.james.rcpt.to/2010/10/25/perl-search-and-replace-using-variables/
for further details.
Test plan
1) Attempt to use capture groups in your regular expression based
MarcModificationTemplate and note it does not work.
2) Apply the patch and try again, this time the capture group should
yield the expected results.
3) Run t/SimpleMARC.t and confirm the tests still pass.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Fuerste-Henry <andrew@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Fridolin Somers <fridolin.somers@biblibre.com>
On bug 17591 we discovered that there was something weird going on with
the way we export and use subroutines/modules.
This patch tries to standardize our EXPORT to use EXPORT_OK only.
That way we will need to explicitely define the subroutine we want to
use from a module.
This patch is a squashed version of:
Bug 17600: After export.pl
Bug 17600: After perlimport
Bug 17600: Manual changes
Bug 17600: Other manual changes after second perlimports run
Bug 17600: Fix tests
And a lot of other manual changes.
export.pl is a dirty script that can be found on bug 17600.
"perlimport" is:
git clone https://github.com/oalders/App-perlimports.git
cd App-perlimports/
cpanm --installdeps .
export PERL5LIB="$PERL5LIB:/kohadevbox/koha/App-perlimports/lib"
find . \( -name "*.pl" -o -name "*.pm" \) -exec perl App-perlimports/script/perlimports --inplace-edit --no-preserve-unused --filename {} \;
The ideas of this patch are to:
* use EXPORT_OK instead of EXPORT
* perltidy the EXPORT_OK list
* remove '&' before the subroutine names
* remove some uneeded use statements
* explicitely import the subroutines we need within the controllers or
modules
Note that the private subroutines (starting with _) should not be
exported (and not used from outside of the module except from tests).
EXPORT vs EXPORT_OK (from
https://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/06/perl-exporter-examples/)
"""
Export allows to export the functions and variables of modules to user’s namespace using the standard import method. This way, we don’t need to create the objects for the modules to access it’s members.
@EXPORT and @EXPORT_OK are the two main variables used during export operation.
@EXPORT contains list of symbols (subroutines and variables) of the module to be exported into the caller namespace.
@EXPORT_OK does export of symbols on demand basis.
"""
If this patch caused a conflict with a patch you wrote prior to its
push:
* Make sure you are not reintroducing a "use" statement that has been
removed
* "$subroutine" is not exported by the C4::$MODULE module
means that you need to add the subroutine to the @EXPORT_OK list
* Bareword "$subroutine" not allowed while "strict subs"
means that you didn't imported the subroutine from the module:
- use $MODULE qw( $subroutine list );
You can also use the fully qualified namespace: C4::$MODULE::$subroutine
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org>
We should remove the debug statements or use Koha::Logger when we want
to keep it.
Test plan:
Confirm that occurrences of remaining occurrences of DEBUG need to be
kept (historical scripts for instance)
Confirm that the occurrences removed by this patch can be removed
Confirm that the occurrences replaced by Koha::Logger are correct
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Looks good to me, noting a few minor points on BZ.
JD amended patch: replace "warn #Finished" with "#warn Finished", and
put the statement on a single line
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org>
This patch corrects handling of subfield 0 when copying/moving. Before these
patches copying from subfield 0 would copy the entire field.
We also correct an error that if moving a single subfield, we can leave behind empty
fields with no subfields. They should be deleted.
To test:
1 - Define a new MARC Modification template with actions:
Delete field 100$0
Add new field 100$0 with value Test
Update existing or add new field 100$0 with value TestUpdated
Move field 100$0 to 600$0
Copy field 600$0 to 100$0
Copy and replace field 245$0 to 700$0
2 - Define a new record like:
LDR 00334nam a22001217a 4500
003 ff
005 20201102111604.0
008 201102b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _ _ ‡cvsd
100 1 _ ‡012345‡aKnuth, Donal Ervin‡d1938
245 _ _ ‡012345‡aThe aty of computer programming‡cDonald E. Knuth
650 _ 0 ‡042‡aComputer programming‡9462
3 - Modify this record using the template above
4 - Note that entier 245 is copied to 700, same for 600 field
5 - Apply patch
6 - Now only subfields 0 are copied
Signed-off-by: Fridolin Somers <fridolin.somers@biblibre.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org>
To recreate:
1 - Have a record with 100$0 defined
2 - Define a Marc Modification template:
Delete field 100$0
3 - Perform Batch record modification, enter the record above in the list of records
4 - Preview the MARC
5 - Note the entire 100 field has been deleted, don't modify the record
6 - Apply patch
7 - Restart all the things
8 - Test the modification again
9 - This time the preview confirms only the subfield 0 deleted
10 - Modify the record
11 - Confirm the record is correctly updated
Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chrisc@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer.83@web.de>
JD amended patch: Fix typo ony vs only
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org>
Bug 9978 should have fixed them all, but some were missing.
We want all the license statements part of Koha to be identical, and
using the GPLv3 statement.
Signed-off-by: David Nind <david@davidnind.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
When adding MARC modification template (MMT) actions, if a subfield
value of 0 (zero) is entered it will not show up in the action's
description upon saving. Also, if you try to modify an authority or
biblio record using actions that refer to subfield 0 the procedure
will fail.
This patch fixes that.
Test plan:
0) Create a MARC modification template and add some actions to it,
ideally testing all action types (Delete/Add new/Update existing
or add new/Move/Copy/Copy and replace); make sure you input a 0
(integer zero) in the text box for the subfield value(s).
1) As you save each action, observe that subfield 0 ($0) is missing
from the action description.
2) Home > Tools > Batch record modification: try to modify a biblio-
graphic record using the modification template you just created.
Observe that you get an error in the system logs if you click on
'Show MARC' or 'Modify selected records'.
3) Apply the patch.
4) Repeat steps 0-2. The subfield value ($0) should be displayed in
the action description and the Batch record modification should
work without problems.
Signed-off-by: Lisette Scheer <lisettes@latahlibrary.org>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Control fields are not handled correctly by Koha::SimpleMARC when
comparaison (with or without regex) is done.
Which means we did not support something like:
Do something if control field 008 equals or matches "a string"
Test plan:
Create a new MARC modification template and a new action, like:
Add new field 100$a with value "foo bar" if 008 (or any other control
fields) matches (or equals) a regex
Then use the record mofication tool and confirm that the new field is
create if the regex matches 008 of the bib record
Signed-off-by: Mark Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Add/Update would update a field or create new if it existed, but didn't
allow for creating new if the field existed.
This patchset splits the options to 'Add & Update' so that 'Add' will always
add a field and 'Update' will operate as it always has
To test:
1 - Have a record with a known existing field (make a copy)
2 - Define a marc modification template that 'Add/update' on that field
3 - Define an 'Add/Update' on a field that doesn't exist
4 - Batch modify the copy of record using the above template
5 - Verify the existing field was updated
6 - Verify the non-existing field was updated
7 - Apply patch and update database
8 - Make another copy
9 - Modify the copy with the same template as above
10 - Should match initial modification
11 - Add a new rule to add a new field
12 - Modify using the updated template
13 - Ensure your new field is created
14 - Test various options in the modification tool
15 - prove t/db_dependent/MarcModificationTemplates.t
Signed-off-by: Victor Grousset <victor.grousset@biblibre.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chrisc@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com>
Mainly a
perl -p -i -e 's/^.*3.07.00.049.*\n//' **/*.pm
Then some adjustements
Signed-off-by: Josef Moravec <josef.moravec@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@unc.edu.ar>
Signed-off-by: Brendan A Gallagher <brendan@bywatersolutions.com>
This patch implements the copy and replace action for the marc
modification templates.
Instead of copying a field/subfield, it will erase the destination
fields/subfields.
Test plan:
Find it yourself.
Compare the differences between the copy and the copy_and_replace
actions.
The easier way to test is to 1/ create a complete record, 2/create some
modification templates and 3/ use the batch record modification with the
"preview" function.
QA note: I kept the same tests as "copy" and, if no change were
expected, I noted them "(same as copy)", to be sure this new action won't
introduce regression on these tests.
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Just some cleaning before to continue, _copy_field and _copy_subfield did not
do anything useful.
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
There is an inconsistency in the copy action:
Given the following control sample:
245 _aThe art of computer programming
_cDonald E. Knuth.
300 _aA_exists
_bB_exists
If we apply action (a) Copy the whole field 245 to 300, we get:
245 _aThe art of computer programming
_cDonald E. Knuth.
300 _aA_exists
_bB_exists
300 _aThe art of computer programming
_cDonald E. Knuth.
If we apply action (b) Copy the subfield 245$a to 300$a, we get:
245 _aThe art of computer programming
_cDonald E. Knuth.
300 _aThe art of computer programming
_bB_exists
In (a) the field is copied but in (b) the subfield is erased.
We should be consistent and don't erase the destination field.
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
This fix is a global fix for the MarcModificationTemplate feature.
Some unit tests were missing and some behaviors were wrong.
For instance, if you tried to update a non existent field, the script
crashed.
The following line was completely stupid:
if $from_field ne $to_subfield
The field_number equals 1 if the user wants to update the first field
and 0 for all fields.
The field_numbers (note the s) variable contains the field numbers to
update. This array is filled if a condition exists (field exists or
field equals).
Signed-off-by: Brendan Gallagher <brendan@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com>
This patch series is a bugfix for the Marc modification templates tool.
Bug description:
If you want to do an action (delete/update/move/...) on a multivalued
field and if a condition is defined on the same field, it is highly
probable the resulted record will not be what you expect.
For example:
Deleting All (or the first) fields 650 if 245$a="Bad title" works with
the current code.
BUT if you want to delete All (or the first) fields 650 with a condition
on 650$9=42, and if at least one field matches the condition :
- if you have selected all, all fields 650 will be deleted, even the
ones who do not match the condition.
- if you have selected first, the first 650 field will be deleted, even
if it does not match the condition.
The expected behavior is to delete the fields matching the
condition (and not all the 650 fields).
What this patch does:
This patch introduces 2 changes in the logic of Koha::SimpleMARC.
The first change is a change of the prototypes for the 2 routines
field_exists and field_equals. Now they return the "field number" of the
matching fields.
The second change is the type of the "n" parameter for all routines
using it in Koha::SimpleMARC. Before this patch, the "n" parameter was a
boolean in most cases. If 0, the action was done on all fields, if 1
on the first one only. Now it is possible to specify the "field numbers"
(so the array of field numbers which is returned by field_exists or
field_equals) for all routines which had the n parameter.
Test plan for the patch series:
Note: This test plan describes a specific example, feel free to create
your own one.
0/ Define a marc modification template with the following action:
Delete field 245 if 245$9 = 42
1/ choose and export a record with several 245 fields.
For ex:
245
$a The art of computer programming
$c Donald E. Knuth.
$9 41
245
$a Bad title
$c Bad author
$9 42
2/ import it using the Stage MARC for import tool.
3/ verify the imported record does not contain any 245 field.
4/ apply all the patches from this bug report
5/ do again steps 2 and 3
6/ verify the imported record contains only one 245 field, the one with
245$9=41
7/ verify the unit tests passed:
prove t/SimpleMARC.t
prove t/db_dependent/MarcModificationTemplates.t
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Gallagher <brendan@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com>
Currently the Koha::SimpleMARC module call a "field" a "subfield".
And the way to manage field is not implemented for all routines.
This patch does not modify the API. The routine's names are kept. It
just creates 2 privates routines for each action (e.g. delete_field
will call _delete_field if the action affects field and _delete_subfield
if the action affects subfields).
Before this patch the move action was authorised by the interface but
caused an error if executed.
Note: I don't see the meaning for the add/update action if no subfield
is given. So the call without subfield raises an error.
Test plan:
- apply all patches
- create or modify an existent template
- try at least the correct behavior for the following actions:
* delete subfield and field
* add new subfield to an existing field
* add new subfield to an nonexisting field
* move a subfield
* move an entire field
* copy a subfield
* copy an entire field
- import a biblio and use this template
- verify the imported biblio matches actions defined.
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com>
In order to avoid a long list of parameters, it should be better to
pass all of them into a hashref.
This patch does not add or modify a behavior.
Test plan:
Verify the unit tests still pass
- prove t/SimpleMARC.t
- prove t/db_dependent/MarcModificationTemplates.t
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com>
The keywords given and when are flagged experimental
in perl 5.18 and subject to change. This patch
replaces the construct by an if/elsif
To test:
[1] Verify that prove -v t/SimpleMARC.t passes.
Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com>
Signed-off-by: Galen Charlton <gmc@esilibrary.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Bug 8015: Fix complains from qa tools
Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Get rid of the eval in ModifyRecordWithTemplate
This patch removes the use of eval in the
C4::MarcModificationTemplates::ModifyRecordWithTemplate routine.
Now this routine call the wanted modification routine with the list of
parameters.
This call is done only if the condition is respected.
Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Get rid of eval for evaluating =~ m//
Koha::SimpleMarc::field_equals uses eval in order to check if a string
matches a pattern.
Now this eval is removed and the "regex" variable does not contain the
regex separated character (/ or |).
Regression: Before this patch, the user was able to user a modifier. Now
it is not possible.
Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Get rid of the eval for substitution
Before this patch, the regex substitution was contain into only one
variable (e.g. my $regex = "/foo/bar/i").
Now each member of the regex is stored into a field in the
marc_modification_template_actions sql table.
In order to avoid a complex code, only modifiers i and g are take into
account.
Note: If you already add the mmta table, you have to drop it.
This patch also adds a foreign key from mmta to mmt tables.
Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: FIX ui issue
Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: The template name is a required field
Test plan:
Try to add a template with an empty string as name.
Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Galen Charlton <gmc@esilibrary.com>
Bug 8015: Fix template capitalization amd other template issues
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Fix error where field object is returned instead of field value for fields without subfields
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Fix bad ordering on function parameters
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Escape escape characters for strings
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Fix bad parameter list for direct external call to update_field
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Fix problem with moving existing subfield value to nonexistent field/subfield
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: FIX QA issues
This patch fixes some stuffs failing qa tests: POD, indentation (tabs),
perlcritic
Signed-off-by: Galen Charlton <gmc@esilibrary.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Bug 8015: Followup: On move, we cant delete existing fields
Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Galen Charlton <gmc@esilibrary.com>
The MARC Modification Templates system gives Koha users
the power to make alterations to MARC records automatically
while staging MARC records for import.
This tool is useful for altering MARC records from
various venders work with your MARC framework.
The system essentially allows one to create a basic script
using actions to Copy, Move, Add, Update and Delete fields.
Each action can also have an optional condition to check
the value or existance of another field.
The Copy & Move actions also support Regular Expressions,
which can be used to automatically modify field values during the
copy/move. An example would be to strip out the '$' character
in field 020$c.
Furthermore, the value for an update can include variables
that change each time the template is used. Currently,
the system supports two variables, __BRANCHCODE__ which
is replaced with the branchcode of the library currently
using the template, and __CURRENTDATE__ which is replaced
with the current date in ISO format ( YYYY-MM-DD ).
At its simplist, it can perform functions such as:
Copy field 092$a to 952$c
At its most complex it can run actions like:
Copy field 020$c to 020$c using RegEx s/\$// if 020$c equals RegEx m/^\$/
Signed-off-by: Leila <koha.aixmarseille@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Galen Charlton <gmc@esilibrary.com>
Sanjar Tulkinov Anvar o'g'li
Pedro Amorim
Andrew Fuerste Henry
Lari Taskula
Jonathan Druart
Martin Renvoize
Tomas Cohen Arazi
Koha Development Team
Kyle M Hall
Alex Buckley
Marcel de Rooy
Nick Clemens
Arthur Suzuki
Martin Renvoize
Andreas Roussos
Jonathan Druart
Jonathan Druart
Colin Campbell