https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=27365 --- Comment #33 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Thomas Klausner from comment #31)
But as I stated in my original comment, MARC::Record should handle invalid data (i.e. field > 9999 bytes). Either by rejecting the data (i.e. throwing an exception) or truncating the data. Or let the user decide which of the two via a flag.
That's an interesting idea.
But generating an invalid record that cannot be parsed back is definitely a bug.
That's a very good point.
That said... in theory the MARC standard could be changed/hacked, so that the "20 - Length of the length-of-field portion" could be longer, and then the MARC processing library could interpret a directory as having longer field lengths...
I guess you're joking. I cannot imagine that this 24 year old standard can be changed, esp. as we have things like MARCXML :-)
I probably didn't articulate myself well enough. I mean the standard contradicts itself a bit. In theory, it lets you define the length of the field according to one part. But another part says only to a maximum of 4 characters. And another part mandates only 4 is allowed. But in theory if you had a cooperative software library, you could stretch the truth a bit... so yeah maybe I was joking around a bit haha. (Also, the standard is much older than 24 years!) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.