https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40777 --- Comment #32 from Victor Grousset/tuxayo <victor@tuxayo.net> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #31)
No POD for subs and the new module. Fixed in the last patch.
Thanks ^^
for_biblio() isn't covered by tests (I mean actual code coverage, not the weird error message we get in some cases)
Added a test.
Coverage good! :)
Turns out the tests fail if one happens to have started KTD with UNIMARC data.
And if I go to the UI and click audit. [...] Looks like incorrect data, it's a misc4dev's problem.
Indeed, I can just create the missing values in the UI. But looking at the full test failures, and even when I create the missing values in TYPEDOC and LOC, there is also this: # Failed test at t/db_dependent/Koha/Database/DataInconsistency.t line 309. # Structures begin differing at: # $got->[0] = 'Biblionumber 21655 has '@' in 001$@' # $expected->[0] = 'Biblionumber 21655 has '-42' in 001$@' # Failed test at t/db_dependent/Koha/Database/DataInconsistency.t line 324. # Structures begin differing at: # $got->[0] = 'Biblionumber 21655 has '@' in 001$@' # $expected->[0] = 'Biblionumber 21655 has '-42' in 001$@' # Looks like you failed 2 tests of 2. # Failed test 'ids_not_in_marc' and # Failed test 'no warnings' # at /usr/share/perl/5.36/Test/Builder.pm line 193. # There were 3 warning(s) # Previous test 0 '' # Argument "@" isn't numeric in numeric ne (!=) at /kohadevbox/koha/Koha/Database/DataInconsistency.pm line 235. # at /kohadevbox/koha/Koha/Database/DataInconsistency.pm line 235. -------- There is something else weird. Still on UNIMARC, 099$t is by default TYPEDOC, which has no value. So the audit complains it can't find LIVR for example (many record have this value). - Now if I change the framework to map to itemtype. - misc/batchRebuildBiblioTables.pl - restart services - the audit will stop complaining about LIVR not existing - but it still doesn't existing in itemtype - (same result if I apply bug 38336 and start KTD) Do the steps make sense? If so, that looks like the audit let the issue slip through. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.