[Koha-bugs] [Bug 14957] Write protecting MARC fields based on source of import

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14957

Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|unspecified                 |master
             Status|Patch doesn't apply         |Needs Signoff

--- Comment #101 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to David Gustafsson from comment #100)
> (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #95)
> > I think I might be repeating myself, probably on a different bug. But I
> > think we should add both whitelisting and blacklisting 'MARC record overlay
> > configurations', and then hook them into whatever place we want (i.e. for
> > z39.50, for OAI harvsting, etc). It seems to me that we are duplicating
> > efforts in some places, and solutions don't look generic enough.
> > 
> > 'Protecting' is just a way to say you are blacklisting some fields on
> > overlaying.
> 
> Now rebased again, so should work with latest master. "Protecting" is
> probably a little bit misleading to reflect what the patch currently does,
> it has been largely refactored since the first version (which I did not
> write). I have renamed it to MARC merge rules instead, since it is more of a
> framework for auto-merging records according to a set or rules.

I hadn't noticed that. We should change the bug name to reflect what this
actually does.

> My experience is that is is really tricky to get this right, and if trying to
> fit it into another abstraction that might not be suited for this exact
> purpose it could be more trouble than it's worth
> (https://www.sandimetz.com/blog/2016/1/20/the-wrong-abstraction).

While I agree with the assertion, I don't think it is the case. What I'm saying
is that we could just add a boolean (whitelist/blacklist) to specify a
different behaviour, using the same code and rules. That's something that would
belong to a separate bug, of course. I just mentioned here because I thought
'Protect' could be avoided, which you already did :-D

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.