Check Function Validate PostalCode: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "CCMDB.mdb" to "CCMDB.accdb") |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|DIC_implementation_date=2016-03-24 | |DIC_implementation_date=2016-03-24 | ||
|DIC_status=implemented | |DIC_status=implemented | ||
|DIC_app=CCMDB. | |DIC_app=CCMDB.accdb | ||
}} | }} | ||
Implementation date was earlier than that when we had this in a tmp field; it has been checked for longer than this. | Implementation date was earlier than that when we had this in a tmp field; it has been checked for longer than this. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:43, 2019 September 22
| 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: | CCMDB.accdb |
| 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
Related articles
| Related articles: |