These are chat archives for collectiveaccess/support

4th
Apr 2017
Kehan Harman
@kehh
Apr 04 2017 01:44
@naeemmuhammad that sounds like the disk partition that your mysql data directory lives on has run out of disk space.
Anita Ruijmen
@aruijmen
Apr 04 2017 12:21
Hello. I have an issue with a relationship display template. I have an object/entity relationship with interstitial metadata container marc852. This container is broken down into marc852t (object lookup), marc852y/marc852h/marc852l and marc8529 (all text-items).
I made a display template:
<unit relativeTo="ca_entities"><l>^ca_entities.preferred_labels.displayname</l></unit><br/>
<unit delimiter="<hr>">
<b>Title: </b>^ca_objects_x_entities.marc852.marc852t<br/>
<b>Bibl. Referentie boektitel: </b>^ca_objects_x_entities.marc852.marc852y<br/>
<b>Call Number (Shelf): </b>^ca_objects_x_entities.marc852.marc852h<br/>
<b>Number: </b>^ca_objects_x_entities.marc852.marc852l<br/>
<b>Additional remark: </b>^ca_objects_x_entities.marc852.marc8529<br/>
</unit>
This gives me the following result:
blob
When I open the paperclip however, we see that marc852t (title) does contain information.
blob
What do I need to do to get the object lookup title information into my display template?
Anita Ruijmen
@aruijmen
Apr 04 2017 12:28
The same problem occurs whith object/object relationships. Entity-lookup information is shown, object lookup information on top of the object/object relationship is not shown in the display template. Any useful tips or information how to solve this? What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance
ps: the mac852t field contains a valid object_id.
CollectiveAccess
@collectiveaccess
Apr 04 2017 13:29
@aruijmen Try this?
<unit relativeTo="ca_entities"><l>^ca_entities.preferred_labels.displayname</l></unit><br/>
<unit delimiter="<hr>" relativeTo="ca_objects_x_entities.marc852">
<b>Title: </b>^marc852t<br/>
<b>Bibl. Referentie boektitel: </b>^marc852y<br/>
<b>Call Number (Shelf): </b>^marc852h<br/>
<b>Number: </b>^marc852l<br/>
<b>Additional remark: </b>^marc8529<br/>
</unit>
Anita Ruijmen
@aruijmen
Apr 04 2017 13:41
@collectiveaccess This gives exactly the same result.
Does it play a role that we are using version 1.6.2?