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

Add _INFO file validation #1186

Open
1 of 5 tasks
yruslan opened this issue Feb 17, 2020 · 0 comments
Open
1 of 5 tasks

Add _INFO file validation #1186

yruslan opened this issue Feb 17, 2020 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
3rd party issue Issue not our own in origin but we are slowed down by them feature New feature priority: medium Important but not urgent Standardization Standardization Job affected under discussion Requires consideration before a decision is made whether/how to implement

Comments

@yruslan
Copy link
Contributor

yruslan commented Feb 17, 2020

Background

Currently, most fields of an _INFO file are not validated.

Feature

Add _INFO file validation for Enceladus when Atum starts to support custom validators of _INFO files (Atum/#22 and Atum/#23)

Here is the list of validations (to be extended)

  • Make sure 'Source' and 'Raw' checkpoints are present when Standardization starts.
  • Country field should conform to the standardized list of countries (a MDR table).
  • Source system name should be from the list of source system names (a MDR table).
  • The information date should be in 'YYYY-MM-DD' format. Validate the date is the same as the report date
  • Processing Start/Finish should be in a consistent format across checkpoints. Need to add validation of checkpoints created prior to Standardization.
@yruslan yruslan added feature New feature under discussion Requires consideration before a decision is made whether/how to implement Standardization Standardization Job affected priority: undecided Undecided priority to be assigned after discussion 3rd party issue Issue not our own in origin but we are slowed down by them labels Feb 17, 2020
@yruslan yruslan added priority: medium Important but not urgent under discussion Requires consideration before a decision is made whether/how to implement and removed under discussion Requires consideration before a decision is made whether/how to implement priority: undecided Undecided priority to be assigned after discussion labels Apr 20, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3rd party issue Issue not our own in origin but we are slowed down by them feature New feature priority: medium Important but not urgent Standardization Standardization Job affected under discussion Requires consideration before a decision is made whether/how to implement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants