[Babase] MPI data testing

Karl O. Pinc kop at meme.com
Fri Jan 8 14:57:45 EST 2010


On 01/08/2010 01:40:58 PM, Lacey Maryott Roerish wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Karl O. Pinc <kop at meme.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 01/08/2010 01:27:48 PM, Lacey Maryott Roerish wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Karl O. Pinc <kop at meme.com> 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 01/08/2010 10:56:06 AM, Lacey Maryott Roerish wrote:
> > > > > Karl,
> > > > >
> > > > >      Susan and I did a little poking together and found some
> > > > > problems.
> > > > >  One
> > > > > is that the 'decided' column doesn't seem to be computed
> > > correctly.
> > > > > It
> > > > > is
> > > > > TRUE for everything... So that will need to be fixed.
> > > >
> > > > This is because MPIACTS.Decided is true for every row
> > > > that ever appears as the first interaction in the
> > > > multi-party interaction collection.   This needs
> > > > to be fixed in the data - you and I got it wrong
> > > > somehow.
> > > >
> > > This doesn't make sense. I thought that 'decided' was only true 
> if
> > > the
> > > interaction was initiated by a decided interaction (Only AS OS or
> > > DS).
> > > and
> > > that for any MPI that was initiated by a VS or anything else, 
> this
> > > would be
> > > false. is that what you are saying here and I am just dense?
> >
> > That logic is fine, but that's not what the MPIACTS.Decided
> > column values say.  The data needs to be fixed.
> >
> Right, the data in the DB is definitely wrong.. This isn't a value we
> manually enter, it is computed.  

No.  It is a value that is obtained from data you manually enter,
the value in the MPIACTS.Decided column.  (Check out the sql
in the MPI_EVENTS view documentation and look just at the
part that computes the Decided column.)

> Gotcha! It seems that we should definitely have the rule that lines
> sharing
> a sequence number must have the same act.  If it isn't the same thing
> happening, it doesn't seem to warrant a shared sequence number.  Good
> Call
> :)

I am not 100% sure of this.  We may want/need such a rule for sanity
when it comes to sequence number 1, but I see no particular reason
why, say, there couldn't be a grooming and a passive help being given
action happening at the same time, so long as it's not the same
individual doing both.  (The check for which would be another database
rule.)

I think we need guidance from our fearless leaders.



Karl <kop at meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                 -- Robert A. Heinlein




More information about the Babase mailing list