https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5404
Marcel de Rooy <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Signed Off |In Discussion --- Comment #5 from Marcel de Rooy <[email protected]> --- QA Comment: I am not sure if this really is a better solution. I also doubt about the remark in comment 1 "Apparently older versions of Koha considered a MARC subfield in the frameworks that had a code longer than one character to be reserved for internal use". To me it just seems to be a trick to skip the internal fields lib, tab, mandatory and repeatable (all length>1). In terms of design it would have been easier to put all subfields a level deeper instead of on the same level as lib, etc. I understand about not changing the design of the structure here. But now we move the test length<>1 from a subroutine into the code and check if it is a ref or not. I probably would like to still have the test in the subroutine (with all benefits of a subroutine); another name would be fine. If someone wants to add some other property to the structure and suppose that is an arrayref or a hashref or an object, your test would fail. I would propose to test (in the sub): [a] skip if the field name matches lib|tab|mandatory|repeatable or [b] proceed if the field is a ref called MARC::Field (instead of testing if ref is true, we test ref eq ..) Obviously, I agree with removing the call for a loop on only real subfields. Changing status -- 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/
