feat: flex - forbidden_real_time_booking_field_value validation notice
#1845
Conversation
|
@tzujenchanmbd @Sergiodero Since these booking rule changes are happening faster than I expected (thanks @cka-y!) How about we split up the QA responsibility.
Seem reasonable? |
📝 Acceptance Test Report📋 Summary✅ The rule acceptance has passed for commit 40fa824 📊 Notices ComparisonNew Errors (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. Dropped Errors (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. New Warnings (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. Dropped Warnings (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. 🛡️ Corruption Check0 out of 1575 sources (~0 %) are corrupted. ⏱️ Performance Assessment📈 Validation TimeAssess the performance in terms of seconds taken for the validation process.
|
|
Based on the definition of Notice name: forbidden_real_time_booking_field_value Columns displayed lgtm! |
|
LGTM as well, I just have one suggestion: I'm not sure if this will align well with other error descriptions in the validator, but I think it might be useful to explicitly point out the fact that the error is originated in the |
|
@cka-y Yes to @Sergiodero's point - maybe we could say: "A forbidden field value is present for a real-time booking rule in booking_rules.txt. |
emmambd
changed the title
forbidden_real_time_booking_field validation noticeforbidden_real_time_booking_field_value validation notice
|
✅ Done @Sergiodero @tzujenchanmbd |
|
Test data works as expected :) QA side ✅ |
📝 Acceptance Test Report📋 Summary✅ The rule acceptance has passed for commit 5249d3c 📊 Notices ComparisonNew Errors (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. Dropped Errors (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. New Warnings (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. Dropped Warnings (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. 🛡️ Corruption Check0 out of 1575 sources (~0 %) are corrupted. ⏱️ Performance Assessment📈 Validation TimeAssess the performance in terms of seconds taken for the validation process.
|
📝 Acceptance Test Report📋 Summary✅ The rule acceptance has passed for commit b99cacd 📊 Notices ComparisonNew Errors (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. Dropped Errors (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. New Warnings (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. Dropped Warnings (0 out of 1575 datasets, ~0%) ✅No changes were detected due to the code change. 🛡️ Corruption Check0 out of 1575 sources (~0 %) are corrupted. ⏱️ Performance Assessment📈 Validation TimeAssess the performance in terms of seconds taken for the validation process.
|
Summary:
This PR introduces a new validation rule that triggers an
ERRORseverity notice when the following conditions are met:booking_type = 0(Real-time booking)prior_notice_duration_minprior_notice_duration_maxprior_notice_last_dayprior_notice_last_timeprior_notice_start_dayprior_notice_start_timeprior_notice_service_idExpected Behavior:
A validation notice is generated if the above conditions are met, flagging the presence of forbidden fields in a real-time booking rule.
Screenshot:
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
gradle testto make sure you didn't break anything