Skip to content
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

fk_dataowner check not correct #176

Open
sjib opened this issue Nov 1, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

fk_dataowner check not correct #176

sjib opened this issue Nov 1, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@sjib
Copy link
Contributor

sjib commented Nov 1, 2024

          Thanks for plugin 1.6.4.

Testing exports (these was blocking me in the last days):
Export DSS_2015, no selection: no errors in the validation at the end, reachpoints are now exported with Abwassernetzelementref.
Strange message while exporting:
2024-10-17T18:46:54 SUCCESS Sucess : OK: Integrity checks organisation
2024-10-17T18:46:54 SUCCESS Sucess : OK: Integrity checks wastewater_structure
2024-10-17T18:46:54 SUCCESS Sucess : OK: Integrity checks identifiers not isNull
2024-10-17T18:46:55 SUCCESS Sucess : OK: Integrity checks fk_owner not isNull
2024-10-17T18:46:55 SUCCESS Sucess : OK: Integrity checks fk_operator not isNull
2024-10-17T18:46:55 INFO INFO: Missing fk_dataowner in schema qgep_od : Add missing fk_dataowner to get a valid INTERLIS export file when converting to Release 2020 (will bei MANDATORY). See qgep logs tab for details.
2024-10-17T18:46:55 INFO INFO: Missing fk_provider in schema qgep_od : Add missing fk_provider to get a valid INTERLIS export file when converting to Release 2020 (will bei MANDATORY). See qgep logs tab for details.
2024-10-17T18:50:40 SUCCESS Sucess : Data successfully exported to P:/Thun/Gemeinden/166-167 Unterlangenegg/qgep/exporte/qgep-export2024-10-17

First SUCCESS OK, then Info about missing fk_dataowner. I checked the XTF-File: there are as many as records exported, so I think this Info is fake

Originally posted by @urskaufmann in QGEP/QGEP#880 (comment)

@sjib
Copy link
Contributor Author

sjib commented Nov 4, 2024

@urskaufmann Should I just change the final message if fk_provider and / or fk_datawoner are missing?
Or should I also stop the export as with missing fk_owner / fk_operator?

What do the others think?

@sjib sjib changed the title fk_datawoner check not correct fk_dataowner check not correct Nov 4, 2024
@sjib
Copy link
Contributor Author

sjib commented Nov 4, 2024

And additional condition criteria would have to be added here if fk_provider and / or fk_dataowner are not complete

@urskaufmann
Copy link

I have now realized what the message is about... you have to really really read the text!

I would not stop the export.
I would place this Note at the end of the export. Not starting with "Missing..." but something like: When converting to release 2020, fk_dataowner/fk_provider will be mandatory, but are missing in this export.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants