Sharing description from our Cataloger, CH:

We believe the following describes a defect.

Support indicates it is an enhancement request and suggests we propose on Idea Exchange.

Background:
1) We turned on the ‘polinedescriptionupdateuponbibchange’ enhancement in the sandbox.
2) The enhancement overwrote the $$l instead of pulling in the $$a from 022 – this behavior describes a defect
None of the following 3 options allow us to properly use the ‘polinedescriptionupdateuponbibchange’ enhancement:
1. Ideally, we want to enable the ‘polinedescriptionupdateuponbibchange’ function to auto-sync changes in the bib record to the POL bib description. This saves our Cataloging team from an additional step to manually edit the POL record.
However, we are unable to use this Alma function at all because when we do, it auto-reverts the POL bib desc ISSN from $$a to $$l.

1. Less ideal, we use the Reload Bib Data button to sync changes in the POL bib desc to match the bib record (a more manual approach—it means our Cataloging team needs to click the ‘Reload Bib Data’ button).
   However, again, we are unable to use this function because this option also changes the ISSN from $$a to $$l. Another Alma feature we are not able to use.

2. Least ideal – Cataloging team manually updates every field in POL bib desc to match bib record updates. This is the most work for the Cataloging team, as it does not allow them to use the 2 previous enhancements in Alma to make their jobs easier. With this feature enabled, if the Cataloging team manually types anything into the ISSN field in the POL bib description, the system will auto-revert to $$l and override manual changes. Once the Cataloging team makes any change to the ISSN field in the POL bib description, they CANNOT revert it back to $$a. It's as though they lost control of that field entirely. This feels to our organization to be a major glitch - why doesn't the system allow the user to make and save a MANUAL change to a field?