[Koha-devel] Hiding...

[Mark Tompsett]

Greetings,

> 1) 942$n
> Since this is determined by the search query,
> it's irrelevant when it comes to filtering fields and subfields.

True, but I figured I'd mention it to be complete. :)


> 2) OpacHiddenItems
> This is a tough one, since we hide the entire biblio
> if all the items within it are hidden.
> Would have to think more about this one...
> I both like and dislike this system preference.

-- Imagine a Biblio with two items, one which is completely hidden, and the 
other not. It's ugly, but this gives 942$n a little more granularity.


> 3) MARC Bibliographic Frameworks
> ... that's why I brought up Tomas's idea of using
> XSLTs for filtering instead. There would be a XSLT
> for each framework which could be changed
> dynamically each time the framework is changed,
> which should not be very often anyway.
> When retrieving records from the database or Zebra,
> the record would be filtered through the XSLT.

But sometimes the record is a MARC::Record, and sometimes it is XML. I don't 
know how to filter XML using XSLT, but I do know how to filter a 
MARC::Record. :)
So, unless we are going to ensure the record is always passed around 
internally as XML, Bug 11592 in its current state seems good enough to me.


> Conceptually, the visibility in the bibliographic frameworks
> should always apply to records whether they're retrieved
> from Zebra or MySQL.

Yes, I agree. However, the internal storage structure (sometimes 
MARC::Record, sometimes XML) and the way things are retrieved (Zebra/MySQL) 
makes filtering consistently difficult. This is just an overlap of method 2 
and 3 as a quick and dirty solution, since #2 was already in Koha and bug 
11592 is a clean up of #3.


> For instance, say field X is hidden in the framework.
> With your scripts, it would be hidden in the detail views,
> but it wouldn't be hidden in the search results.
> Doesn't that completely defeat the point of hiding
> it on the detail page if they can see it in the
> search results, which is likely their first point of
> contact with the record anyway?

Yes, unless OpacHiddenItems ends up filtering out the things to show in 
search details. You can use both #2 and #3 to accomplish a clean hide. Yes, 
it's ugly, but it is functional. :)

So unless you want to refactor the whole hiding, which I'm open to 
discussing, I just need a sign off for 11592. :)

As for refactoring, if I recall 'papa' was suggesting something similar to 
the circulation rules screen for hiding. ;)

GPML,
Mark Tompsett