I have no idea why we have these two variables $id and $originalid, it seems that they should not cohabit. It feels like Users and original authors of this script should provide an update and refresh it. I do not know either. But because of that it seems to me that we need more
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20811 Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Signed Off |Failed QA Patch complexity|--- |Small patch QA Contact|testopia@bugs.koha-communit |m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl |y.org | CC| |m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl --- Comment #15 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- Hmm. The first patch is obviously needed. But I have my doubts on the second patch. Can we move it to another report to expedite handling the first ? About the second: proof that this change is valid. Why do you change it? How did you test it? etc. The only assignment to $id that I see is line 328 when the condition $match is true and @$results == 1. Does $id here become the biblionumber of the only match/duplicate? Apparently this record is updated by the script. $originalid is the 999c or 001 from the imported batch record. So it seems to me that it should not be a valid biblionumber. And certainly no candidate for $biblionumber. Look also at the remaining lines testing if there is a biblionumber. I have the strong feeling that this is a very bad change ! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.