Open bepetersn opened 10 years ago
Are you arguing that either one of those should be true? If so which one and why?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Brian Everett Peterson < notifications@github.com> wrote:
Going over a more interesting subset of housing locations, 15-EMAW, for people AWOL from Electronic Monitoring, I found a good proportion of inmates have their in_jail field set apparently incorrectly compared to their housing history. Here's an example of that:
[image: screenshot from 2014-03-28 06 43 09]https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1389463/2560184/ece42e5a-b7ae-11e3-816f-321678bd017c.png
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/sc3/cookcountyjail/issues/308 .
Regards
Norbert Winklareth
In the above example, in_jail on the inmate should be set to false if the person's housing location is false. But it is in fact set to true.
That's what I was referring to.
The inmate's in_jail field has to match their latest housing_location.
The cause of this mismatch happened with the database restore that happened after the data 0024 migration. That data migration, which set the inmate, in_jail, field to the correct state, needed to be run again.
Running the audit found the following: (cookcountyjail)ubuntu@ip-10-190-110-43:~/apps/cookcountyjail$ ./manage.py audit_db Starting database audit: 2014-03-30 14:45:26.197862 Number inmates checked: 87512 Number inmates with incorrect 'in_jail' values: 3352 Audit took 0:01:08.005206.
After the data migration to correct the in_jail values, running the audit gave these results: (cookcountyjail)ubuntu@ip-10-190-110-43:~/apps/cookcountyjail$ ./manage.py audit_db Starting database audit: 2014-03-30 15:18:23.279196 Number inmates checked: 87512 Audit took 0:01:08.788787.
The audit program only checks in_jail values and as we find others to be checked they should be added to the program.
That's excellent!! Nice work, Norbert. On Mar 30, 2014 3:23 PM, "nwinklareth" notifications@github.com wrote:
Running the audit found the following: (cookcountyjail)ubuntu@ip-10-190-110-43:~/apps/cookcountyjail$ ./manage.py audit_db Starting database audit: 2014-03-30 14:45:26.197862 Number inmates checked: 87512 Number inmates with incorrect 'in_jail' values: 3352 Audit took 0:01:08.005206.
After the data migration to correct the in_jail values, running the audit gave these results: (cookcountyjail)ubuntu@ip-10-190-110-43:~/apps/cookcountyjail$ ./manage.py audit_db Starting database audit: 2014-03-30 15:18:23.279196 Number inmates checked: 87512 Audit took 0:01:08.788787.
The audit program only checks in_jail values and as we find others to be checked they should be added to the program.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/sc3/cookcountyjail/issues/308#issuecomment-39038188 .
I just ran this command again tonight, and found:
"Starting database audit: 2014-04-02 04:49:41.173672 Number inmates checked: 87878 Number inmates with incorrect 'in_jail' values: 52 Audit took 0:01:09.488053."
The in_jail field seems to be continually diverging! Or am I misinterpreting this?
Last night, I got the database back to a state with 0 incorrect in_jail values, by re-running the migration you made, @nwinklareth. I ran audit_db again today (one scrape later), and found:
Starting database audit: 2014-04-02 16:55:44.290510 Number inmates checked: 88034 Number inmates with incorrect 'in_jail' values: 24 Audit took 0:01:10.870714.
Assuming the auditing program is correct (I was looking over it, and I only had a few lines where I was scratching my head), it seems like the scraper isn't setting the in_jail values correctly.
Going over a more interesting subset of housing locations, 15-EMAW, for people AWOL from Electronic Monitoring, I found a good proportion of inmates have their in_jail field set apparently incorrectly compared to their housing history. Here's an example of that: