Closed mgraber closed 3 years ago
Question for HED: previously the fields were in alphabetical order. If this is no longer the case, should we remove the z_ prefixes?
Yes please, thank you!
@kschmidtDCP Where within this new order would you like partially_complete
, the new flag added in #363
Organize QAQC table to be more streamlined with HED checks: b_likely_occ_desc, b_large_alt_reduction, b_nonres_with_units, units_co_prop_mismatch, partially_complete -> New QAQC check units_init_null, units_prop_null, units_res_accessory, outlier_demo_20plus, outlier_nb_500plus, outlier_top_alt_increase, dup_bbl_address_units, dup_bbl_address, z_inactive_with_update, no_work_job -> New QAQC check geo_water, geo_taxlot, geo_null_latlong, geo_null_boundary, invalid_date_filed, invalid_date_lastupdt, invalid_date_statusd, invalid_date_statusp, invalid_date_statusr, invalid_date_statusx, z_incomp_tract_home, dem_nb_overlap
Question for HED: previously the fields were in alphabetical order. If this is no longer the case, should we remove the
z_
prefixes?