http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14098
--- Comment #5 from Gaetan Boisson <[email protected]> --- > QUESTION: First, is that make sense to add a new field in 3 but erase the > subfield in 4? > This is certainly wrong. This sounds more like a rhetoric question than a true question ;), but i agree, this doesnt make a lot of sense to me! > To support more use cases, I would like to create another action "copy and > replace". [...] > QUESTION: Does everybody agree with that? I do. > > Ok, That was the easy situations. > > Now what should happen if we have this control sample? > 245 _aThe art of computer programming > _cDonald E. Knuth. > 245 _aAnother title > _cAnother author > 300 _aA_exists > _bB_exists > 300 _aA_also_exists > _bB_also_exists According to me, we need more than one action to manage this. If we are copying a whole field, then it sounds rather simple (to me) to add a new field along the two existing 300, (copy in a new field) or to replace the existing one (update). I think this is already possible in the tool. If we are copying a subfield, it's tricky. We could want to - create a new field with the copied subfield (copy in a new field) (never ambiguous with the modified record) - copy it to all the existing fields (update existing fields) but some records in the batch might not have a corresponding field already, so we would need a "conservative update" (don't do anything if there is no such field already) and a "force update" (create the field if none exists already). I think i could deal with the second option being the only one if this is stated clearly. I hope this helps, i admit my ideas are a bit muddy on the topic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
