Limitation in age at death in burial entry when over 100 years old

[SteveBiggs]

This has come up before but I can't remember the outcome. Up to age 99, you can enter 99y or 99y6m, etc. but from 100 onwards, FreeREG only accepts numbers. E.g. 100y fails as does 100y6m, etc. Some transcribers make a habit of always including the 'y' (although they don't need to) so wonder why 100y fails.

[DeniseColbert]

Vino thinks this could be a quick fix

[suffolkroots]

Another--- "person_age"=>"103y6m",

This is not an error and should not need correcting.

[suffolkroots]

It surely should be important for the integrity of our data, that any record which is correct should be searchable?

eg "person_age"=>"103y6m",

This is correct and should be searchable.

[SteveBiggs]

@suffolkroots Age is not a searchable field. This issue is about making it possible to enter 103y6m when transcribing an entry.

[suffolkroots]

@SteveBiggs this record was not searchable as the age was marked as an error. In order to make it searchable I amended the age and added a note. As the age was not wrong in the first place, this should not be necessary.

[SteveBiggs]

Ali, I'm agreeing with you. The "error" prevented the entry from being processed into the database so would not be there to be found in a search. That's why I raised this story and when it's fixed, FreeREG will accept age records above 100 in the same format as those below 100.

[DeniseColbert]

@Vino-S needs to do some more tests to identify the scale of this issue

[SteveBiggs]

Tested and working in test3

[AlOneill]

We also need to check that the documentation is correct for recording the age at death in: "Entering data from registers" and the flexible (extended) burial fields.

[SteveBiggs]

The Help on age at death makes no mention of ages above 100 so I don't think it needs changing.

[AlOneill]

I've just been looking and I agree! (Did not want to miss any disinformation.)

[Vino-S]

Code deployed to production

[DeniseColbert]

Done: closing