Open eeerika opened 2 years ago
@eeerika This looks good. Two notes:
1) Please note what I said in issue #2 about the use of ERROR -- it shouldn't be for normal failures
2) While this check is great, it is really a metadata-only check, and so is probably better implemented with the rest of that type of check over in the metadig-checks
repo
I propose we might want to define the scope of checks in this metadig-rake
package to 1) data quality checks and 2) metadata-data congruency checks .. i.e., stuff that requires opening the data files.
Got it, thank you Matt! I did see that other issue regarding the use of ERROR and thought I had phrased that correctly -- what would be a way I could phrase it better here? (by the information cannot be accessed, I had meant due to a system failure or something of the sort)
yeah, I think we're on the same page. I think something like:
ERROR: on system error or exception in the check code, representing a bug in the check system
Purpose
This check will look to see if an attribute is accurately described as interval vs. ratio. (can maybe expand this to check to include more measurementScale types?)
Components
Result
SUCCESS: if the attribute is accurately described FAILURE: if the attribute is not accurately described or the unit of the attribute is not found in a list ERROR: on system error or exception in the check code, representing a bug in the check system