marc_export script needs an option to specify scope of holdings

Bug #1075573 reported by Chris Sharp
10
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Evergreen
Triaged
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

This is following up on a brief discussion on IRC yesterday (http://evergreen-ils.org/irc_logs/evergreen/2012-11/%23evergreen.05-Mon-2012.log#line66) regarding a use case that is currently not addressed by the marc_export script in Evergreen. The way the script currently works, when you specify the --library parameter (which is repeatable), it will select bibliographic records for volumes owned by each library specified. If you then add the --items parameter, the script will add holdings for all libraries that have volumes attached to the bibliographic records rather than just the specified libraries. So from my perspective, the following options should output the following results:

--library WITHOUT --items - export non-deleted bibliographic records for non-deleted volumes owned by the specified library (current behavior)
--items WITHOUT --library - export holdings for all libraries that own non-deleted volumes for the specified set of bib IDs (or --all) (current behavior)
--library WITH --items - export holdings for only the specified libraries

I can't think of a reason why one would want/need other libraries' holdings when specifying a single library's collection.

Evergreen 2.1.1
OpenSRF 2.0.1
PostgreSQL 9.2
Debian squeeze

Revision history for this message
Ben Shum (bshum) wrote :

Seconded, this would be a great feature.

Changed in evergreen:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

I think the proposed options are confusing.

How 'bout we just use --library to include things where that library has holdings and use --items to specify whether or not you want the holdings exported in the MARC.

--all would actually become unnecessary and redundant in this case.

Do you get what I'm saying and does it seem to meet your requirements?

Revision history for this message
Ben Shum (bshum) wrote :

Fixed with bug 1223903. Marking as duplicate of that bug to link them together and close this one.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.