|
|
| Line 42: |
Line 42: |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| | === any problems moving to one pool per laptop for all? === |
| | {{Discuss | |
| | * Would there be any problems if, for all new patients entered onto laptops, a single serial pool was used? Existing entries can be completed with current serial, so there should be no orphans. |
|
| |
|
| {{Discuss |
| | }} |
| * Would anyone see a problem if we standardized this to using one serial number pool per laptop? What would be the problems? Ttenbergen 19:55, 2020 June 2 (CDT)
| | |
| ** if you follow the higher number sequence per laptop (discontinue the lower one). There will be no problem for unique record. However, those outstanding (incompletes) wards with lower number sequence will become orphans in the master database which Pagasa has to delete. I think the deletion will be easy and Pagasa need not crosscheck at all or confirm with the DC - simply delete the ones with lower serial number. The drawback for following the higher sequence order (currently 5 digits) is the growing number of digits over time which consequently has an effect on D_ID.
| | '''Possible problem: large Serials will increase size of D_ID''' |
| ***Another option, have a fresh start with a new lower number (2 or 3 digits) or continue the lower number sequence for all laptops. This would mean changing something to all profiles having laptop identifier (say, make the serial # negative or change the laptop identifier ,e.g. H9 to HS9). Any change for the incompletes will result to orphans and more orphans if this is the option. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 08:48, 2020 June 3 (CDT)}}
| | [[D_ID]] is currently limited to 18 characters. The only unit who has 18 right now is [[HSC_WRS3]]; the laptop is at 14600ish. The highest local serial is 40500ish for STB_ACCU. It will be a long time before these roll over to 10000. This should not be a problem. |
|
| |
|
| === Negative and presumably decreasing serials === | | === Negative and presumably decreasing serials === |