https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32722
--- Comment #21 from Victor Grousset/tuxayo <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mathieu Saby from comment #20) > So the patch fixes Koha for Unimarc (I agree with Thibault), but causes > problem for Marc21. What could be the solution? comment 14 might be one. Which is a subpart of the proposal of comment 13. Which needs the addition that the advanced editor would also need to be changed to account for the "Mandatory if tag is used" switch. ----- (In reply to Phil Ringnalda (back in August) from comment #19) > So for MARC21 just changing the meaning of > mandatory subfield in non-mandatory field wouldn't be acceptable. It came in chat I think but I don't remember if there would be a problem: What about changing the MARC21 frameworks in existing installs and the installer to set to mandatory the fields containing a mandatory subfield? Then the current patch would have the basic editor behave identically to the advanced editor (and have a bit of code cleanup as bonus). And the difference of policies of the impact of mandatory subfields on fields will be managed by choosing or not to set the various fields as mandatory. Which will be already be done by the migration so current behavior wouldn't be changed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://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/
