LGC-39 Udix remove print #836
Conversation
Merge from original repo
|
Just ignore the commits history, I didn't realise a bunch of old/irrelevant changes stuff was left there. |
|
It was a tmp file, just to test the script. I wasn't sure if it was needed for a code review. But it is now updated with the correct IDs. |
Added correct IDs
|
Looks good then! Maybe you should check also if the property is left empty after removing the "Externt magasin" object, and if that's the case, remove the property from graph[1]. If you think there are cases where associatedMedia/marc:hasTextualHoldingsBasicBibliographicUnit contains only one ("Externt magasin") object? |
| PrintWriter failedUpdating = getReportWriter("failed-updating") | ||
| PrintWriter scheduledForUpdating = getReportWriter("scheduled-updates") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAIK created/modified/deleted are now default reports, created automatically, so these shouldn't be necessary. (Which means scheduledForUpdating and failedUpdating below can also be removed.)
| def holds = hold.graph[1] | ||
|
|
||
| propertiesToCheck.each { prop -> | ||
| holds[prop].removeIf { it["marc:publicNote"].contains("Externt magasin / Closed stacks") } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If holds doesn't have prop, or it doesn't have "marc:publicNote", you'll get a NullPointerException, so being a bit more defensive might be in order. E.g.,
holds[prop]?.removeIf { it["marc:publicNote"]?.contains("Externt magasin / Closed stacks") || false }
| selectByIds( HoldIDs.readLines() ) { hold -> | ||
| def holds = hold.graph[1] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick: the use of hold (an individual hold) vs holds (here a part of that individual hold) is slightly confusing. Maybe "holds" => "item" would be better. (Doesn't matter for a one-off script, but for the future 😄).
In general this is probably a very good idea, but the case here is that if there is only one object in associatedMedia/marc:hasTextualHoldingsBasicBibliographicUnit ("Externt magasin") the entire holdings record should be removed. That will be done separately (i.e. registervårdsklienten). |
I see! That was the point with writing a script right... |
No description provided.