Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

For clustered OUs, datimvalidation::validateData output may be confusing #78

Open
jacksonsj opened this issue Mar 9, 2018 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jacksonsj
Copy link
Collaborator

When datimvalidation::validateData is fed a PSNU import file for a Clustered OU, it outputs a log showing validation rule violations at the PSNU level, made possible because of operations in distributeCluster which moves data from cluster to PSNU level in producing the PSNU import file.

This makes it difficult for reviewers (e.g., SI Advisors) to identify where in their Disagg Tools (at the Cluster level) to correct when looking at violations expressed at PSNU level in validateData's output.

For clustered OUs, could we perform validateData validations as part of datapackimporter::ImportSheets, prior to data being distributed from cluster to psnu, and also to incorporate these validation checks earlier?

This change would require validateData to be in sync with cluster mappings.

@jason-p-pickering
Copy link
Owner

I don't think this will work really, because validateData is all about what we are actually going to import. We might have a situation where there are NO validation rule violations with the clustered data, but after its distributed to the PNSU level, there are validation rule violations.

I think we could potentially add an additional column by manipulating what comes out of validateData, to make it clear that this PNSU is part of a cluster.

@jason-p-pickering jason-p-pickering removed their assignment Mar 12, 2018
@jason-p-pickering jason-p-pickering added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants