https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5404
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #5) > 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. Yes, that would be a next step. > 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. Not sure it's needed, as the test is very simple. Where would you move this subroutine? > 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. Yes but it works for the moment :) The structure has not changed for years. > I would propose to test (in the sub): > [a] skip if the field name matches lib|tab|mandatory|repeatable Imo, that would make the test less strong and too specific. -- 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/
