Closed TanyaPieterse closed 9 months ago
A fix for this is in progress.
Just a plug for the weebly to keep tabs on known issues: https://hudhdx2infoissues.weebly.com/
Hi @MollyMcEvilley , @JulesABrown ,
On 11/21/2023 we still have Flag 461 ( upload: https://hdxsandbox.abtsites.com/dataset/443/flag-report ) but our case is a bit different from the original case which may be interesting for you:
tlsa_Household.HHFleeingDV is calculated on step 6.1 only:
Here is our data:
Thus, on step 6.1, 4 records from tlsa_HHID table are grouped into one tlsa_Household record; HHFleeingDV = 1
On step 6.8.1 ESTFleeingDV is calculate as MAX(FleeingDV), thus, we get ESTFleeingDV = 2:
The client doesn't have RRH and PSH project stays, so RRHFleeingDV = 0, PSHFleeingDV = 0.
Thus, we have a scenario described in the flag, but I am not sure if the flag should be reviewed, or Sample Code and Spec should be corrected, or we need to fix our initial data.
Could you please take a look and advise?
Thank you! Natalie
Closing - this was resolved and details are on weebly.
Hi @JulesABrown ,
I still get the flag for my scenario above.
New upload: https://hdxsandbox.abtsites.com/dataset/503/flag-report#
Thank you! Natalie
@MollyMcEvilley This one needs you to weigh in on the question in the comment. Should it be possible to be a 1 in HHFleeingDV if only 2s in any of the [EST/RRH/PSH]FleeingDVs?
Yes! If they were currently fleeing for an RRH-SO enrollment but not for an ES/SH/TH/RRH(Standard)/PSH enrollment, HHFleeingDV will be 1 and the others will be whatever the data for the individual project groups reflect.
@MollyMcEvilley, please look at the specific example Natalie provided in the comment from 2 weeks ago where the client has no RRHSO stays. The difference is due to the way the values are calculated differently in different steps.
The code for setting EST/RRH/PSHFleeingDV was not updated to account for multiple non-zero options -- it was looking for the max tlsa_HHID.HHFleeingDV value because the max used to be 1. Instead, it should be looking for the minimum non-zero value and set it to zero if none exists. Updating the sample code in 6.8.1, 6.8.2, and 6.8.3.
Hi there, This flag seems to be caused by the same issue identified in issue 1187. According to the flag:
The LSAHousehold field HHFleeingDV must be consistent with the information provided by the project-specific versions of HHFleeingDV (ESTFleeingDV, RRHFleeingDV, and PSHFleeingDV). If HHFleeingDV equals 1 (yes), then at least one of the project-specific versions must equal 1. If HHFleeingDV equals 0 (no), then all of the project-specific versions must equal 0.
The values are: hhfleeingdv 1
estfleeingdv 2
rrhfleeingdv 1
pshfleeingdv 0 rrhsostatus 0
The flag dictionary looks at hhfleeingdv~=max(estfleeingdv,rrhfleeingdv,pshfleeingdv) & rrhsostatus<=2. In the flag description above it looks like if HHFleeingDV=1 then at lease one of the others (estfleeingdv,rrhfleeingdv,pshfleeingdv) should =1. Why is the flag checking if they are the same/approximate?
With the above values hhfleeingdv=1 and both estfleeingdv=2 and rrhfleeingdv=1 will satisfy the check. Why is this being flagged?
Thanks,