- Article Type: General
- Product: Aleph
- Product Version: 20
We want to suppress PST9 from display in the OPAC. We list PST0, PST1, PST2 etc. in the edit_doc_999.eng, and the PST9 is not displayed. But now we encounter another problem: the PST base-specific locations are not filtered according to item_list_oder.xxx tables.
1) For the Full View:
The system filters sublibraries according to the setting in item_list_order.xxx only if there are more than one sublibary. In addition, system handles each line in edit_doc_999 separately. Thus, if all PST1# belong to the same library, this sublibrary will be displayed, even if not in item_list_order.xxx, because item_list_order.xxx is not consulted.
2) For the Brief View:
The setup in the scenario uses "PST##" in column 12 of www_tab_short.eng, which is incorrect:
6 L Locations 00 00 2000 L ## PST##
BOTH formats (000 and 953) show only WID, i.e., work properly, if "PST" is used rather than "PST##":
6 L Locations 00 00 2000 L ## PST
This is because format "000" uses www_tab_short.eng with the program "www_f_short_a_edit.cbl", whereas format "953" uses www_f_tab_short_999 together with edit_doc_999.eng in the program "www_f_short_b_edit.cbl" (that calls "www_f_edit_doc_999_loc.cbl").
Note that format "000" uses "WWW-SHORT" in tab_sub_lib_sort, whereas format "953" uses "WWW-FULL-LOC-PST". Since both of them are included in the table with sort type "02", the sorting by base works well.
Indeed the 953 format works on the basis of edit_doc_999 and www_f_tab_short_999. Therefore, it is more flexible and can be sensitive to indicators in the "PST" fields.
However, this is not the case with the brief format 000. It is not sensitive to indicators for "PST" fields. There are several special types of fields (they should be specified under column 12 of www_tab_short.eng) that are edited with the "buf_sub_library_sort" routine: "LOC+", "LOC", "PSTS" and "PST". This includes "PST" regardless of the indicators.
If you specify under column 12 to 16 of of www_tab_short.eng fields that are not in the hard-coded list above (e.g. "PST0", "PST1", PST2", "PST#", "PST#"), they will be displayed as is, but with edit_field editing.
This is a feature. I think that the alternative format - 953 - can be used if the customer needs flexibility that is beyond what format 000 can offer. Enabling special treatment of indicators specifically for "PST" fields for the brief format 000 is a clear enhancement.
We suggested the library remove the PST9 fields from display by using the setting in edit_field and by virtually deleting the PST9 fields with fix_doc_do_file_08 in tab_expand WEB-FULL and WEB-BRIEF, as described in KB 8192-2122
- Article last edited: 10/8/2013