-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
333 c02 link delayed discharges episodes #639
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking good. Some comments around how delays are being classified.
I think the main issue is that your join won't catch cases when
- CIJ has a missing end date (i.e. ongoing MH record).
- Delay record has a missing (i.e. ongoing delay).
- Sometimes won't match when the delay has an amended end date. e.g. When the CIJ ends during the month but the delay has an end date of the end of the month.
Co-authored-by: James McMahon <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: James McMahon <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: James McMahon <[email protected]>
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
by keeping the records that are closest to the cij record
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Co-authored-by: Jennit07 <[email protected]>
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me. I ran the code with the existing run_episode_file
and it works well. I will approve and await @Moohan feedback before merging! Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Quick pass correcting some lint issues
Also add a TODO to make this change earlier
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@check-spelling-bot Report🔴 Please reviewSee the 📂 files view or the 📜action log for details. Unrecognized words (3)hhg To accept ✔️ these unrecognized words as correct and remove the previously acknowledged and now absent words, run the following commands... in a clone of the [email protected]:Public-Health-Scotland/source-linkage-files.git repository curl -s -S -L 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/main/apply.pl' |
perl - 'https://github.com/Public-Health-Scotland/source-linkage-files/actions/runs/5155205432/attempts/1' To have the bot do this for you, reply quoting the following line: Available 📚 dictionaries could cover words not in the 📘 dictionaryThis includes both expected items (206) from .github/actions/spelling/expect.txt and unrecognized words (3)
Consider adding them using (in with:
extra_dictionaries:
cspell:swift/src/swift.txt
cspell:cpp/src/cpp.txt
cspell:sql/src/tsql.txt
cspell:python/src/python/python.txt
cspell:python/src/python/python-lib.txt
cspell:python/src/common/extra.txt
cspell:npm/npm.txt
cspell:latex/latex.txt
cspell:java/java.txt
cspell:html/html.txt To stop checking additional dictionaries, add: with:
check_extra_dictionaries: '' If the flagged items are 🤯 false positivesIf items relate to a ...
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm happy with this, I suspect we'll find some issues in later testing but good to go now!
@Jennit07 I'm, approving but have made a few changes just now so I'll leave to you to re-review, approve and merge!
Had a look through the new commits and everything looks good. Will approve/merge! |
Linked to issue #333. The skeleton is ready for review. There are some small issues left that need help, such as the columns kept for delayed discharged files. See the comments for more information.