CFE Inline Integrity Checks: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
* Pagasa, Julie, can you think of other things to check? | * Pagasa, Julie, can you think of other things to check? | ||
** First S must be the same as first B. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ** First S must be the same as first B. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ||
*** Agreed [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | |||
** Any CCI and ICD10 with datetime must have a corresponding B date. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ** Any CCI and ICD10 with datetime must have a corresponding B date. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ||
*** Does it? They are acquireds so could be on B or at any time before D. If so, that was already on my list of possible checks above. If you mean something else, pls explain. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | |||
** do we allow first B ER the same as second B non-ER when previous loc is ER? or simply delete the first B ER from tmp if the same as second B non-ER. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ** do we allow first B ER the same as second B non-ER when previous loc is ER? or simply delete the first B ER from tmp if the same as second B non-ER. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ||
** only one T per B it's linked to (no multi T). each T must have an integer. found case with | *** I don't understand this one. Do you mean same time? [[Query_check_tmp_service_or_location_duplicate]] should find such duplicates, so I think they are not allowed. Are you seeing such things? But I still don't remember what the additional information you give about ER has to do with it... can you explain? Additionally, these extra checks on this page are to catch things Pagasa accidentally gets wrong in edits - would she edit this? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ||
** only one T per B it's linked to (no multi T). each T must have an integer. found case with multi T- one without integer and another with integer. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | |||
*** How old were the problems you found? [[Query_s_tmp_check_Boarding_Loc_and_TransferReadyDtTm_pairs]] should catch these. I can't think of an error scenario where Pagasa would edit the linking integers, so I wonder how this crept in. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | |||
** T should not have missing time or should not have check mark. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ** T should not have missing time or should not have check mark. - --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | ||
*** Do you mean just time, or dttm? It's one field now, so missing time and midnight are the same. I don't think we have any rule to disallow that. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT) | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:18, 2022 August 10
Pagasa edits in CFE, and right now there are no checks in place for typos in these edits.
When and how would these checks run?
Cross-checks in CCMDB are triggered by collectors checking the various "complete" boxes, but there is no equivalent to this in CFE, especially since Pagasa can legitimately edit tables directly or via query, so these checks would likely need to be triggered manually, likely between Quality Assurance queries in CFE and actually setting records to "vetted".
What sort of checks do we actually want?
|
|
|
|
Related articles
Related articles: |