Skip to content

Find Unexpected Values for geo_id #426

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

Conversation

JedGrabman
Copy link
Contributor

  • Script for finding geo_ids
  • Resulting CSV files with lists of geo_ids broken down by geo_type
  • Update template to allow explicitly setting validator directory
  • Implement check for finding unexpected geo_id values

Note: Due to technical issues I was not able to run the validator to test this. Looking for code to be run in addition to reviewed.

Code to validate that all geo_id values are valid, by comparing against a list of known values.
- Clarify format vs. value checks
- move files from csv/ -> static/
Renamed directory and file (unique_geoids.R) is now expected to be run from within the directory instead of from one level up.
@JedGrabman
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nmdefries as suggested reviewer, since I cannot set it directly.

@nmdefries nmdefries self-requested a review November 3, 2020 19:55
Comment on lines 263 to 264
unexpected_geos, "Unrecognized geo_ids (not in historical data)"))

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Increment check counter with self.increment_total_checks().

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this still need to be fixed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed in latest commit

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, waiting on this and a few other changes!

Copy link
Contributor

@nmdefries nmdefries left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! There are just a few cleanup items left.

  • Write some tests to check behavior of this function. You can put tests in tests/test_checks.py
  • Apply any check name changes to method calls in tests/test_checks.py. There are a few trivial failures right now.

@JedGrabman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Added changes in response to comments. Please verify by running tests before merging.

@nmdefries nmdefries self-requested a review November 5, 2020 19:15
Copy link
Contributor

@nmdefries nmdefries left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few old function name problems in tests. Suggested changes have been tested already and work fine, so once those are incorporated, we should be good to merge! 🎉

@nmdefries nmdefries merged commit 728a060 into cmu-delphi:fb-package-validation Nov 5, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants