Check Function Validate PostalCode: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Data Integrity Check}} | {{Data Integrity Check | ||
|DIC_summary=Validates that [[Postal Code field]] only contains characters in format allowed for a postal code | |||
|DIC_related_concepts=[[Postal Code field]] | |||
|DIC_firmness=hard check | |||
|DIC_timing=complete | |||
|DIC_coding=Function ''Validate_PostalCode'' | |||
|DIC_implementation_date=2016-03-24 | |||
|DIC_status=implemented | |||
}} | |||
Implementation date was earlier than that when we had this in a tmp field; it has been checked for longer than this. | |||
Implemented in ''Function Validate_PostalCode()'' and ''Function is_valid_postalcode'' | Implemented in ''Function Validate_PostalCode()'' and ''Function is_valid_postalcode'' | ||
Revision as of 11:50, 26 October 2018
| Data Integrity Checks | |
| Summary: | Validates that Postal Code field only contains characters in format allowed for a postal code |
| Related: | [[Postal Code field]] |
| Firmness: | hard check |
| Timing: | complete |
| App: | not entered |
| Coding: | Function Validate_PostalCode |
| Uses L Problem table: | not relevant for this app |
| Status: | implemented |
| Implementation Date: | 2016-03-24 |
| Backlogged: | true |
Implementation date was earlier than that when we had this in a tmp field; it has been checked for longer than this.
Implemented in Function Validate_PostalCode() and Function is_valid_postalcode
- will reject empty field
- will reject invalid postal code (ie not PC Like "[A-X]#[A-Z]#[A-Z]#")
Declined portion of checks
Cross-checks of PC against Province were implemented at some point but then discontinued due to false positives. Function pc_province_match. Comments in there:
' 2016-07-25 ' it was decided long ago not to check this by the steering committee because ' it gave false positives. ' 2016-11-14 emailed team to find out if we should revisit