360Giving Cove additional check doesnt cite missing Geographic Code Type code

[mrshll1001]

We think there might be some slight errors in additional checks for Cove on 360Giving.

Expected Behaviour Cove additional check for recipient org location is triggered for relevant entries, and a message returning the relevant row and header of Recipient Org:Location

Actual Behaviour Cove additional check indicates entire dataset does not have location information, and message returned indicated the rows but gave the header Recipient Org:Identifier. When downloading the data, Recipient Org:Location information is given appropriately.

First noted on this data, several additional checks are triggered but the same message around recipient:org identifer is given.

@stevieflow noted this as potentially relevant.

[robredpath]

@mrshll1001 Thanks for this. The link in CoVE no longer works (we delete data after 7 days) - please can you upload the data to somewhere that we can access it (maybe Google Drive?)

[stevieflow]

It'll replicate with the latest big lottery data on the registry?

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018, 09:50 Rob Redpath <notifications@github.com wrote:

@mrshll1001 https://github.com/mrshll1001 Thanks for this. The link in CoVE no longer works (we delete data after 7 days) - please can you upload the data to somewhere that we can access it (maybe Google Drive?)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpenDataServices/cove/issues/1070#issuecomment-436918302, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABJ2WJ8cN_9mG_utIY2LSdkYZ87j193Qks5us_BzgaJpZM4YIfMR .

[kindly]

@mrshll1001 I looked at this when you first posted the data, but can not see the example now. Could you share a spreadsheet that displays this information.

From memory the issue was that RecipiantOrg:Location:Geographic Code Type was not in the spreadsheet at all, so every row (or grant) marked that there was not any valid location information. So I think the behaviour is expected.

Possibly the better (or additional) warning for this issue would be that there is a Geographic Code without any valid Geographic Code Type associated with it and the error should point to the Geographic Code where there is no type.

[stevieflow]

I'm using this file:

https://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/-/media/Files/Research%20Documents/aOpenDataFiles/BLFOpenData18-19.xlsx

CoVE results

https://dataquality.threesixtygiving.org/data/9fb77148-1af9-449c-8c87-2e28541bc14e

The query is on this feedback:

In the spreadsheet there are four fields that pertain to recipient org location info, I think:

Recipient Org:Location:0:Geographic Code Recipient Org:Location:0:Name Recipient Org:Location:1:Geographic Code Recipient Org:Location:1:Name

From memory the issue was that RecipiantOrg:Location:Geographic Code Type was not in the spreadsheet at all, so every row (or grant) marked that there was not any valid location information. So I think the behaviour is expected.

Yes, that seems to be the case here. @KDuerden - would you know of a file that contains Recipient Org:Location:0:Geographic Code Type so we can double check?

Possibly the better (or additional) warning for this issue would be that there is a Geographic Code without any valid Geographic Code Type associated with it and the error should point to the Geographic Code where there is no type.

Sure - one for the CoVE sprint @mrshll1001 @robredpath .

[KDuerden]

@stevieflow Comic Relief UK data does. BBC CiN and City Bridge Trust but this is with Recipient Org:Location:Geographic Code Type without the 0!

[stevieflow]

Thanks @KDuerden - those datasets do not seem to trigger this check

Therefore, I think this is what we look at:

Possibly the better (or additional) warning for this issue would be that there is a Geographic Code without any valid Geographic Code Type associated with it and the error should point to the Geographic Code where there is no type.

Agree?

[KDuerden]

@stevieflow Yes.

[stevieflow]

Thanks @KDuerden - I've created a ticket on our "non-sprint" board to look at this

[michaelwood]

@KDuerden my colleague @BibianaC is available to work on this, as it's more than a year could you confirm that this is something that is still needed? Thanks

[michaelwood]

Additional Check - recipient geography / area code not present

[robredpath]

We'll likely review geo messaging as part of the work on that, separately.