Skip to content

1198: Add variable_max_size to variables metadata for enhanced data insights#1679

Merged
SFJohnson24 merged 6 commits into
mainfrom
1198-variable-size
Apr 16, 2026
Merged

1198: Add variable_max_size to variables metadata for enhanced data insights#1679
SFJohnson24 merged 6 commits into
mainfrom
1198-variable-size

Conversation

@alexfurmenkov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

No description provided.

@alexfurmenkov alexfurmenkov changed the title Add variable_max_size to variables metadata for enhanced data insights 1198: Add variable_max_size to variables metadata for enhanced data insights Apr 2, 2026
@alexfurmenkov alexfurmenkov linked an issue Apr 2, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you please add testing for this new meta variable covering edge cases?

# Check if the rule requires variable_max_size
if (
self.rule
and self.rule.get("output_variables")
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@SFJohnson24 SFJohnson24 Apr 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i think we want to change the conditions for this--a rule using variable_max_size may not put it in the output variables and cause issue downstream.
We would want to iterate through conditions, looking for variable_max_size--this shouldnt be too costly since most rules dont have too many conditions. We will not know the shape of conditions though--could be any/all, nested so we will need recursion

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@SFJohnson24 Could you check the new logic?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@RamilCDISC RamilCDISC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the tests. All seems fine to me now, but i think we will need to update the documentation too. Could you also please attach any rule and dataset (if you have) you used while developing this ticket.

@alexfurmenkov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Hi, It's the rule and the negative dataset.
1198.zip

@RamilCDISC
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I have completed my review. But before approval we need to update the documentation to add this new variable. Once updated I will approve and final comment.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@RamilCDISC RamilCDISC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The PR adds variable_max_size to meta variables so a comparision for column size and actual max size of the data in the column can be done. The valdiaitonw as done by:

  1. Reviewing the PR for any unwanted changed or comments.
  2. Reviewing the code in accordance with AC.
  3. Ensuring proper testing is implemented.
  4. Ensuring related documentation is updated.
  5. Ensuring all unit and regression testing pass.
  6. Running manual validation using positive dataset.
  7. Running manual validation using negative dataset.
  8. Covering edge cases such as:
  • missing value in a column
  • missing value of dataset size
  • all columns across datasets empty
  • checking functionality on char column
  • checking functionality on num column
  • checking functionality on --Column Names across different datasets
  • checking functionality on fixed columns like USUBJID which are same across the datasets.

@SFJohnson24 SFJohnson24 merged commit 654c3a9 into main Apr 16, 2026
13 checks passed
@SFJohnson24 SFJohnson24 deleted the 1198-variable-size branch April 16, 2026 17:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rule blocked: CORERULES-9422

3 participants