Closed ZachBeck closed 3 years ago
I'm hoping that once I replace the data in Internal no other action will be needed since this data is a replacement rather than an addition or removal.
I don't think porter is required for adding a field to a table.
Anyone, please reopen this if you disagree.
I had the same thought as Steve. But on another note, should we review the codes in the Data team meeting? It might help to have multiple eyes on them to make sure fit the munis as best as possible.
I thought I'd error on the safe side... I'll swap out the data in Internal and leave the old version with the db privileges revoked in there in case we need to roll back. This will be happening to MetroTownships as well.
should we review the codes in the Data team meeting? It might help to have multiple eyes on them to make sure fit the munis as best as possible.
That makes sense to me. I assumed that had happened since there were multiple values for municipalities and it seemed like some discussion was required from the different stakeholders.
Summary
This data will swapping out the existing BOUNDARIES.Municipalities and is essentially the same, the only difference is a new field has been added to hold a 3 character municipal code as per Bert's request.
The data should be available in
1 Check [x] all the areas where you expect the data to show up.
The data is of high quality
2021/04/06
)2021/04/06
)2021/04/06
)Where is the data source
Choose one.
Action items
name
with their github@name
.2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)SGID.META.AGOLItems
record (name, completed:2021/00/00
)static
orshelved
item (name, completed:2021/00/00
):robot: Automation validation
name
with their github@name
.2020/01/01
when the task is verified.2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)2021/00/00
)Notification
Group Task Assignments