SCC-5105: MARC endpoint #608
Conversation
lib/marc-serializer.js
Outdated
| .filter(Boolean) | ||
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| unserialized: bib, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will remove but it's helpful for testing
| @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ | |||
| /** | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're putting the rest of the codebase to shame with all this detailed documentation! Nicely done though it definitely helps make it easy to understand what is going on.
| const parallels = MarcSerializer.findParallelFields(bib, field) | ||
| parallels.forEach((p) => { | ||
| Object.assign(p, MarcSerializer.buildSourceWithMasking(p, matchingRule)) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this an effort to link parallel fields to primary fields so that they can be visually linked on the front-end? Aren't we just rendering 880s as is?
Incidentally I'm not seeing known 880 values come through when viewing/api/v0.1/discovery/resources/b22144813.marclocally
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah this may be wrong then– I'm trying to find the parallels of suppressed fields and suppress them, but otherwise pass parallels through
lib/marc-serializer.js
Outdated
| bib: { | ||
| id: bib.id, | ||
| nyplSource: bib.nyplSource, | ||
| fields: suppressedVarFields |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if this variable is misnamed, but something here does not seem right. Why are you returning something called suppressed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, renamed to serialized to mean all the processed varfields
lib/marc-serializer.js
Outdated
|
|
||
| if (!linkNumbers.length) return [] | ||
|
|
||
| return bib.varFields.filter((f) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm finding this chunk hard to grok. Can you use some more descriptive variable names and/or pull some of these array method callbacks into named functions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Broken down into some more chunks
| subfields: (field.subfields || []).map((subfield) => { | ||
| let content = subfield.content | ||
| if ( | ||
| (rule.subfieldSpec.directive === 'include' && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this is in the original code, but do we know why this is logically here? If the directive says include but it is not present in the subfield spec, wouldn't we just skip it? Wouldn't this add [redacted] for fields that don't have content? @nonword maybe you have some insight?
Adds MARC endpoint which should:
and return the serialized bib.
good test:
b22144813