Closed cicdguy closed 2 years ago
hi @Polkas , I was wondering by any chance that you still have copies of these two screen shots? Thanks!
@shajoezhu I think I find sth connected with it. I checked the current state for "death vs alive" and looks like it is already solved. It will be great if sb from SME will confirm that.
"PFS vs EFS"
Awesome! Thanks so much @Polkas ! We will fix it
I've regenerated the data and the DTHDT matches the LSTALVDT now:
Hey @malexthorpe , I was wondering did you raise a PR for this? could you reference it here please. Thanks
Hey @shajoezhu no PR was required as the issue wasn't present in the data anymore.
Hmm that's interesting @malexthorpe. I saw cases were the LSTALVDT
variable had a date post the DTHDT
date and I was trying to fix the code before I released this issue. Maybe it was something on my side. Were you able to add the unittest to check this works for all instances?
Hi @malexthorpe , thanks for looking into this. I have checked with the following
a <- radsl(cached = T) %>% filter(!is.na(DTHDT))
> which(a$DTHDT < a$LSTALVDT)
integer(0)
Can you add a unittest case for the cached data and check that DTHDT > = LSTALVDT
, then we can close this issue. Thanks
Hey thanks @juliadedic1 and @shajoezhu I have added a unit test in #145 which should error if there are any exceptions
Original message
First of all I want to state that this issue should not results in any previous wrong analysis results. However I feel that this is important to know about relatively incorrect dates. There could be observed a relatively wrong dates of death vs alive or relation between CR vs EFS in our random.cdisc.data datasets. The best description of the issues will be this two print screens: