Error in base.xml ?

In the base.xml definition of the user interface tour_editor_ui there are 2 strange combinations of code and bundle labels:

  • ca_object_lots --> ca_entities
  • ca_entities -->ca_places

Is this intentional or a bug? Here is the code:

   <userInterface code="tour_editor_ui" type="ca_tours">




        <screen idno="relationships" default="0">


            <placement code="ca_objects">
            <placement code="ca_object_lots">
            <placement code="ca_entities">


  • Another mistake in base.xml, at least I don't see any sense in it:

        <relationshipTable name="ca_loans_x_object_representations">
            <type code="lender" default="1">
                <label locale="en_US">
                  <typename>is lent from</typename>
                  <typename_reverse>is lender of</typename_reverse>
                <label locale="en_CA">
                  <typename>is lent from</typename>
                  <typename_reverse>is lender of</typename_reverse>
                <label locale="fr_FR">
                  <typename>est prêté par</typename>
                  <typename_reverse>a prêté</typename_reverse>
                <label locale="sv_SE">
                  <typename>lånas ut från</typename>
                  <typename_reverse>är långivare av</typename_reverse>
              <subTypeLeft> </subTypeLeft>

    The type code (here: "lender") can be swapped out for any other name, right? Or does that break any functionality elsewhere in CollectiveAccess?

  • Regarding your first find, it is definitely not correct, but it has no negative effect as the placement codes are just unique identifiers for the placements. They don't actually have an effect on behavior. The <bundle> values are what determine what shows on screen. Nevertheless, if should be fixed. Thanks for reporting it!

  • Regarding your second find: "lender" is the code for the relationship type. If you're using this type in reports, browses and/or restricting things elsewhere in the system with this type then changing the code will break things. If it's not referenced elsewhere you can safely change the code to whatever you want.

  • Thanks for the clarifications! About the second case: it didn't seem to make sense to me that there is a relationship type "lender" for the relationship loans<-->representations. Can representations be lenders or borrowers of something?

  • It made sense to whomever set up the base profile back in the day (it wasn't me). It's a rarely used relationship, so I guess that's why no one has brought it up until now. I can imagine it was part of some data standard somewhere. I'd think the only relationship type on loans <=> representations that makes actual sense is "part_of" (Eg. representation is part of loan)

    Maybe we should make that change too.


Sign In or Register to comment.