TPAC: Use in-db unapi for copy display in record summary

Bug #901976 reported by Dan Scott
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Evergreen
Triaged
Low
Unassigned

Bug Description

* Evergreen master

Evergreen currently uses in-db unAPI calls to display bib record and copy data in search results, yet uses a complex JSON query to retrieve bib and copy data for the detailed record display.

By adding the required attributes (such as due_date, age_protect, and copy and call number IDs) to the in-db unAPI functions, we can harmonize access to bib and copy data in TPAC and focus future changes on in-db unAPI rather than maintaining parallel access methods.

I have pushed a branch with the recommended changes to the working repo at user/dbs/in-db-unapi-circ-due-date

Tags: needswork opac
Revision history for this message
Dan Scott (denials) wrote :

Force-pushed a clean rebase against master into the user/dbs/in-db-unapi-circ-due-date working branch, now that the non-fixed-width set of commits has been merged.

Revision history for this message
Dan Scott (denials) wrote :

The unapi database function portion of the code has been merged by Mike Rylander into remotes/working/collab/miker/unapi2_subobject_improvement, but we now need to update the TPAC to pass the new hstore values for callnumber / copy paging as that functionality is currently broken.

(Quick thought: create unapi function wrappers that just do the right thing for paging if given limit / offset INT arguments instead of hstore?)

Revision history for this message
Dan Scott (denials) wrote :

Rather than creating wrapper functions, I pushed a quick TPAC fix into Mike's collab branch that simply sets the paging limit at acp=>5 to unbreak TPAC.

Dan Scott (denials)
tags: removed: pullrequest
Revision history for this message
Dan Scott (denials) wrote :

Removed "pullrequest" tag from this bug as the unapi support needs to evolve further to support all of the functionality that the json_query in the record details page currently provides.

Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

or, should this one just not be targeted at a milestone for now?

Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 2.2.0alpha2 → 2.2.0beta1
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 2.2.0beta1 → 2.2.0rc1
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 2.2.0rc1 → 2.2.0
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 2.2.0 → none
Changed in evergreen:
status: New → Incomplete
Changed in evergreen:
status: Incomplete → Triaged
tags: added: opac
tags: added: needswork
Changed in evergreen:
importance: Undecided → Low
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.