Handle holding records that have neither a chronology nor enumeration #1016
Conversation
jcoyne
force-pushed
the
missing-chronology
branch
from
30b3605
to
8836641
Compare
| @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ def latest_received(holding_id) | |||
| return unless latest_piece && order_is_ongoing_and_open?(latest_piece) | |||
|
|
|||
| enumeration = latest_piece['enumeration'] # may not be present | |||
| chronology = latest_piece.fetch('chronology') | |||
| chronology = latest_piece['chronology'] # may not be present | |||
| enumeration ? "#{enumeration} (#{chronology})" : chronology | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to tweak the string output in that case?
| enumeration ? "#{enumeration} (#{chronology})" : chronology | |
| enumeration && chronology ? "#{enumeration} (#{chronology})" : enumeration || chronology |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It currently looks to have parity with what is coming out of Symphony, so I see no reason to make adjustments there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm surprised we'd leave a blank () sitting around if there was an enumeration but not a chronology, but it's difficult to deciphering the existing logic and/or translate the MHLD fields to FOLIO data.
Is this the equivalent code?
https://github.com/sul-dlss/searchworks_traject_indexer/blob/main/lib/mhld_field.rb#L57-L62
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know. This was just to fix the missing method error. If you think there's an error in the output, I would prefer that we make that a new issue, find an example record and add a test to show the behavior we want.
Fixes #1013