MARC Report 240: Problems resolved

'260: Required field missing' message appearing for RDA records even though a 264 field was present. Fixed in 240.

The program did not do a very good job of saving the various panel sizes from an Edit Session (the height of the Fixed Field panel, at the top; the width of the Brief Message panel on the right; and the height of the Notes panel, on the bottom right). The 'sticky-ness' of these settings has been much improved (although the program will still not save a value that it thinks unreasonable).

Two small problems with 'profiles' were resolved. First, newly-created profiles were not available on the main menu until the program was re-started; second, there was no way to delete a profile within the program. Both of these difficulties are resolved in 240. To delete a profile, go to the Options, select the profile (File|Open), then select File|Delete.

The 'red stop' button, designed to stop a long scan for the next record with errors, did not work properly (because of a design issue). The general problem still needs to be resolved, but for now, use the 'red stop' button in the 'Find Next' section on the Brief Message panel: this button does work, and it will stop either type of scan. Note: if the review has been scanning without interruption for a few seconds, you may have to press the button a few times to get the program's attention.

A couple of problems in Edit Macros were fixed. First, pressing an undefined macro would add a Tag '000' to the record. Second, macros may conflict with a few function keys assigned by the Edit Session. Beginning in 240, all conflicts of this nature will be resolved to prefer the user-defined Edit Macro; thus, if you define a macro for <Shift><Ctrl><F7>, it will take precedence over the Edit shortcut that defines this key combination (to add a New 007 field).

In MARC Global, reviews that use the double-pipe syntax to string a list of 'or' patterns into a single statement¹⁾ did not work correctly. The particular problem has been fixed in 240. However, again, we recommend checking old regular expressions and rewriting them to use PCRE where applicable. More details here.