Comment 19 for bug 2015484

Here is where we stand with the bug:

The branch from comment #18 is the one that I'm requesting a pullrequest for. It includes the pullrequest branch from bug 2041364, since that is an actual bug and the original branch this feature had some conflicts with the other. I have resolved those in the rebase branch.

I have signed off on others' commits in both branches, but no one has signed off on mine. I recommend testing with this branch applied and signing off here if you're happy with the combined code. We can then push this branch to main, and the other to rel_3_10 and rel_3_11. If you want to be pedantic, you can test the other branch exclusively on either of those releases. (I have tested the combined branch on rel_3_10_3 as well as rel_3_7_4 and main.)

A note about the new feature branch: I have removed the commit that Jane mentioned not working. I decided not to modify the --exclude-hidden option. It only matters if one of the --items, --library, or --descendants flags are used for marc_export.

Testing is relatively simple and yet complex. You should do a couple of exports before applying this code to see what you get. Then, you should apply this code and do some exports with and without the --exclude-hidden option. You should see a difference in numbers of records if you have locations with bibs and/or items that are NOT opac_visible.

It may help testing if you apply the branch from bug 2041364 first and do some exports with that branch alone because of the speed up that it offers.

Also, I'm not too fussed about the option being --exclude-hidden. I didn't change that in the rebase branch, but if anyone thinks it ought to be changed, feel free to chime in here.

And, FWIW, we're using this code in production at C/W MARS as of 2023-11-01.