Rule DateOfBirth_46 doesn't work properly

Home Forums Data issues Rule DateOfBirth_46 doesn't work properly

This topic contains 6 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Cris Hale 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Cris Hale
    Participant

    I’m getting error DateOfBirth_46 showing up for a learner on a new standard with a start date of 10th May 2017 and an end date of 16th May 2018.
    I can see why they would return this error – computers are as bad with dates as people are (is tomorrow one day away because it’s not yet tomorrow, or no days away because there aren’t any in between?) – but it’s incorrect by two of my reckonings.
    I used Excel firstly, where each date is represented by a number, meaning the start date plus the remaining number of days gives the final date:
    Excel calculation
    Secondly, as a check I have counted the weeks and days on the calendar:
    Manual calculation
    There are 53 full weeks including the start date and the day outlined in grey, the 15th of May 2018, plus the end date; this gives 372 as I’ve shown in the calculation underneath.

    These standards have been going for a little while now, so I’m wondering why this apparently hasn’t been sorted already. I will probably have to adjust the end date, at least for the upload, but I prefer to solve problems than work around them.

    Cris

     
    #164880

    Martin West
    Participant

    Hi Cris,
    There are various functions that can be used to determine how many specified time intervals exist between two dates and these return 371 days for the dates you have entered.
    Its a bit like counting the gaps between the posts.
    Just add a day.
    HTH

     
    #164893

    Caspar Verney
    Participant

    Forgive me for asking, but is an error called DateOfBirth_46 more to do with the Learner’s date of birth, rather than course duration?

     
    #165051

    Cris Hale
    Participant

    Hi both,

    Martin – As I say, I prefer to solve problems than avoid them, but unless I can catch the eye of some SFA bigwig, I think it’s going to come down to that – thanks.

    Caspar – I know, I’m not sure why they put it in that section. I think it’s purely because minimum length (at least before the reforms) was affected by age.

    Cris

     
    #165235
    SFA STAFF

    markshield
    Participant

    I’ve had a look into this and rule isn’t behaving as intended. For some reason it was not looking at the first and last days whilst making the calculation. I’ve raised the defect and am reducing the error to a warning in the mean time.

    Regards
    Mark Shield
    ILR Specification Team

     
    #166110

    Caspar Verney
    Participant

    Thank you Mark

     
    #166124

    Cris Hale
    Participant

    Hi Mark,

    Great – thank you for looking into it.

    Cris

     
    #166421
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.