HRQB 40 - remove volatile warehouse data and fix merge fields #111
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Why these changes are being introduced: Two issues were noted during testing: 1. Some tables had updates for rows each daily run, even though meaningful data had not changed. This was due to data internal warehouse values getting included in Quickbase table that changed daily, but were not meaningful changes. 2. Performance Reviews had some clobbering due to the merge 'Key' field not being unique. How this addresses that need: 1. Foreign keys from data warehouse were removed from Quickbase tables. These provided no value, and were false flags that data was changing. 2. Performance Reviews got the related Employee Appointment ID as part of its merge 'Key' field hashing. This makes them globally unique for an employee. Side effects of this change: * All records were wiped from Performance Reviews and reloaded. Relevant ticket(s): * https://mitlibraries.atlassian.net/browse/HRQB-40
ghukill
commented
Jul 22, 2024
| @@ -109,7 +109,6 @@ def get_dataframe(self) -> pd.DataFrame: | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| fields = { | |||
| "hr_appt_key": "HR Appointment Key", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an example of a data warehouse foreign key that was assumed to be enduring, but actually changes day-to-day.
QB tables have slowly moved into an explicit Key field approach, that is written by HRQBClient. This field was leftover and removing it does not remove any meaningful data from QB.
ehanson8
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2024
jonavellecuerdo
approved these changes
Jul 23, 2024
9 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Purpose and background context
Three issues were noted during testing:
Some tables had updates for rows each daily run, even though meaningful data had not changed. This was due to internal data warehouse values getting included in Quickbase table that changed daily, but were not meaningful changes.
Quickbase table
Performance Reviewshad some clobbering due to the merge 'Key' field not being unique.Issue 2 above revealed that appointments with an end date were still receiving
Performance Reviewrows after the end date.How this addresses those needs:
Foreign keys from data warehouse were removed from Quickbase tables. These provided no value, and were false flags that data was changing.
Performance Reviewsgot theRelated Employee Appointment IDas part of its mergeKeyfield hashing. This makes them globally unique for an employee.Performance Reviewsare only created until the appointment ends.Side effects of this change:
Performance Reviewsand reloaded.How can a reviewer manually see the effects of these changes?
These were purely data mapping updates. Changes in unit tests reflect changes in behavior.
Includes new or updated dependencies?
NO
Changes expectations for external applications?
YES: data was reloaded for table
Performance ReviewsWhat are the relevant tickets?
Developer
Code Reviewer(s)