Tagged: HUB FIS errors
is anyone getting errors back from the HUB that aren’t present in FIS reports ie invalid learning aims?
TIANovember 28, 2019 at 3:21 pm #413178
There are a bunch of errors that FIS doesn’t check because the error is related to broader datasets (this has always been the case).
Are there ones in particular you’ve got appearing?November 28, 2019 at 3:28 pm #413180
Its just standard LearnAimRef errors (88 and 89) although those are new rules – it makes no sense that the LA validation wouldn’t be done through the FIS, so we have no idea if we have errors until HUB reports come back, its not very practical!November 28, 2019 at 3:35 pm #413184
Well, i guess? I’ve been advising people to dump FIS and use SLD for error checking to be honest. It takes about the same time and has all the extra stuff in…
Given 88 and 89 are are new in V3 of the validation rules, which version of FIS have you got? I’m not sure if all of the v3 rules were in 1.0.8 and certainly not before?
This, of course, is another reason to use SLD over FIS, you don’t have to keep on downloading new versions of it!!!November 28, 2019 at 4:16 pm #413196
ESFA know that the validations don’t match properly this year. The easiest thing is just to use SLD to do your validation checks. If the FIS is then showing errors not found on SLD, then I don’t think you need to fix them from an ESFA point of view, but they might impact on your funding data if you use the tables that are generated from the FIS. We’ve got two like this, that I know are fine, but I’ve had to “fix” them so they appear as funded in the FIS output. Frustrating.November 28, 2019 at 4:24 pm #413198
thanks for the replies, we’ve got FIS 1.08 and yes its been when we’ve got to the SLD stage that the extra errors have come through….. Frustrating indeed.November 28, 2019 at 4:26 pm #413200
(1.0.9 came out two days ago, not that they tell anyone of course…)November 28, 2019 at 4:27 pm #413202
for goodness sake! it must have come out about 5 minutes after I got 1.08 then!
thanks SteveNovember 28, 2019 at 4:31 pm #413206
I see a soapbox moment – I have never used FIS for a variety of reasons and your comments here epitomise why it is still just a damp firework. If you have to modify your data to get it to run through FIS, but not to get it to run through the ultimate arbiter (SLD today) then how do you know that any changes you make to your data to get it to work through FIS are not causing other problems or robbing you of funding that you would otherwise get? I know it’s a very old chestnut, but you have just trodden on it.
This is another reason why the online system should be open all/most of the time and not in restricted windows. How would it be if quality assurance only applied half of the time?
Soapbox done.November 28, 2019 at 7:26 pm #413226
I understand why people are saying to ‘dump FIS and use SLD for error checking’ but please can we be careful about saying so on this forum.
We (and most other colleges?) use FIS for a lot more than error checking – internal reports, software like ProAchieve, etc. but it seems as though ESFA are looking for any excuse to get rid of it. Please don’t give them an excuse to do so!November 29, 2019 at 12:10 pm #413320
Fair point Jon!November 29, 2019 at 1:35 pm #413336
There is a survey at the bottom of the FIS download page which indicates, based on it’s questions, that the ESFA are interested in “fixing” FIS.
Please make your voices heard
https://submitlearnerdatabeta.fasst.org.uk/public-downloads/DesktopDecember 2, 2019 at 11:17 am #413968
The ESFA have been doing a lot of research on this lately, and have been asking providers. They interviewed one of my team months ago, and we explained how essential it was to have all the same outputs, regardless of platform. Online would be fine if the same outputs could all be made available, that includes the SQL tables and the mdb.December 2, 2019 at 11:48 am #413978
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.