You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In order to migrate historical data as a product owner I want to know the process held the data to the same (or higher) standard as our intake.
The code: a brief and likely inaccurate history
Months ago, I developed a workbook generator. It began life in order to exercise our early JSON Schema validations. It helped find many logical errors, and drove a great deal of improvement in our intake.
It grew and evolved, serving in a one-off capacity for generating workbooks. As the API came online, I extended it to run end-to-end. Or, I discovered I could generate workbooks in memory, and feed them to the Django application. This rapidly became an end-to-end test: a set of workbooks could be generated, fed to the app, run through all of our validations (including cross-val), and then the data at time of input is compared with what is available via the API.
It is this code that we are basing our historical data migration on.
Approach
The initial refactoring will clone the existing code to another part of the tree, and then walk it forward.
The code will always generate workbooks that validate end-to-end.
Unit tests for critical/core functions will be developed as needed along the way.
Cleanup/refactoring can and should happen as needed.
No massive/architectural rewrites are part of this work.
At all points in the refactoring the code should continue to generate workbooks that validate.
The content you are editing has changed. Please copy your edits and refresh the page.
#2672 is broken out as its own epic for refactoring/improving this code.
When these steps are complete, the team should have a tool that can generate workbooks using the "messy" historical data loaded into our environments via Docker container. It does not yet work with new/"authoritative" Census data.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At a glance
In order to migrate historical data
as a product owner
I want to know the process held the data to the same (or higher) standard as our intake.
The code: a brief and likely inaccurate history
Months ago, I developed a workbook generator. It began life in order to exercise our early JSON Schema validations. It helped find many logical errors, and drove a great deal of improvement in our intake.
It grew and evolved, serving in a one-off capacity for generating workbooks. As the API came online, I extended it to run end-to-end. Or, I discovered I could generate workbooks in memory, and feed them to the Django application. This rapidly became an end-to-end test: a set of workbooks could be generated, fed to the app, run through all of our validations (including cross-val), and then the data at time of input is compared with what is available via the API.
It is this code that we are basing our historical data migration on.
Approach
The initial refactoring will clone the existing code to another part of the tree, and then walk it forward.
At all points in the refactoring the code should continue to generate workbooks that validate.
Tasks
dissemination
tocensus_historical_migration
#2723all_should_pass
andall_should_fail
, plus workbooks #2727#2672 is broken out as its own epic for refactoring/improving this code.
When these steps are complete, the team should have a tool that can generate workbooks using the "messy" historical data loaded into our environments via Docker container. It does not yet work with new/"authoritative" Census data.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: