Closed ayyubibrahimi closed 2 months ago
Thanks for the additional info @ayyubibrahimi - my list that I made in #13 was not actually inclusive of every state, just the ones I had any notes about.
Here is the actual full list of potential launch states as I understand them, with their status as I understand it:
I removed Iowa from this because for some reason I previously thought it had been processed.
I also may receive processed Indiana data this week, if it comes in time to utilize, so that's why I left it there. If it's too late regardless for launch, that's fine and we can keep it off the list.
Based on the list above, does this order make sense?
Confirmed for launch:
States with column names issues. @stecklow can suggest some appropriate column names? :
States with non-collapsed rows. @tarakc02 I think that the row collapsing question is one for you:
Hold off for launch:
Additionally, the list above doesn't contain Texas, Kentucky, and Ohio which are listed as processed in the issue here #13 . Are we skipping these for the launch?
Based on this list, I pushed a prototype for Arizona at: https://national.cpdp.co/state/Arizona which includes an about modal. Should we begin testing the confirmed states next week?
*this is a backup solution in case all of the changes re: map and individual state pages are in place by then.
Hi Ayyub, sorry I missed these. I'm not sure why I failed to include Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky, but those should be included in the list for launch.
Column name suggestions:
All good. Some of these changes were made, but some say "employment_status" still. I'll add it to the list of things to change for the next iteration.
Before I re-run the pipeline now that Tarak has integrated his code into the base, can we confirm that these are the states that have rows that need to be collapsed @stecklow ?
States with non-collapsed rows:
Idaho: question about row collapsing New Mexico: maybe this is a row collapsing question? Oregon: row collapsing question South Carolina: row collapsing question Vermont: row collapsing question
And Maryland was also in my notes in this category. Thanks!
Thanks.
Final list:
A tentative list of states that we should launch with that are referenced in #13. The list is divided into confirmed and holds.
Confirmed
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “actively employed,” etc., or change name of column?
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “actively employed,” etc., or change name of column?
Illinois - no notes, but seems like a good model for the "reason for separation" column
Indiana - question
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “active,” or change name of column?
No notes, except to ask if things can not be all-caps (this is obviously least urgent)
Utah - question No notes, except to ask if things can not be all-caps (this is obviously least urgent)
Washington - question
“Separation reason” column is more of an “employment status/change” column - remove “certified,” or change name of column? Also if things could not be all-caps
No notes, except to ask if things can not be all-caps (this is obviously least urgent)
Not sure “separation reason” is actually showing that - should we change the name of the column?
Holds
Data is probably too incomplete for launch, not sure how many officers actually have history, too many other questions about immediate usefulness, and the state is now also being difficult with my update request so not even sure we can immediately promise anything
No end dates.
I didn’t see Iowa in the launch data folder - which is fine, but it’s otherwise on my list, so just not sure what to list it as (Ben only sent raw data. This has not been processed).
I don’t see any employment history in the index file
Rows in data appear to show employment status or certification changes within individual departments - honestly really not sure what the index file shows
Maybes
Seems like columns reflect employment changes, and certifications, within an agency - hold for launch?
The rows appear to show employment status changes, like promotions, often within agencies, rather than between - hold for launch?
The rows appear to show employment status changes, like promotions, often within agencies, rather than between - hold for launch?
Some of the rows appear to show more employment status changes within departments, though other repeated departments appear to be different stints, which would track with our rule about contiguous service being collapsed
Vermont - hold for launch?
The rows appear to show employment status changes, like promotions, often within agencies, rather than between - hold for launch?