-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fixity email report fields aren't pulling correct data #2568
Comments
I don't have a way to QA without seeing the monthly email report. |
Hi @carakey , since it is already April, we can wait till the next report run this month to check it and make more revision after it. |
Code is on production, fixity will run tonight |
We got the fixity report last night and the field mismatch is still the same. The passed/failed counts are still off. Unless the changes didn't make it to production, this should get moved back to ready for the next local WC.
|
June fixity report still has this issue. Most failures have been resolved, but still one failed file ID and "No. of Files [Failed]: 0".
|
I'm not sure how we can QA this except to go ahead and push to Production and wait for the next report to come in. |
That should be fine @carakey, we can wait until it is push to production and wait for the next time it run to check it out. |
Descriptive summary
Look into how the fixity checker is counting and reporting passing / failing files in its data fields. The last report had a discrepancy where it says zero files failed, but gives 14 IDs of failed files.
Expected behavior
Counts of passing and failing files are reported accurately in the fixity report email.
Actual behavior
The following is the fixity report emailed on on Feb 17, 2024:
I'm reading this as "100% of files passed. Zero files failed. These 14 files failed." If the last thing is true, then the first two things are not.
Steps to reproduce the behavior
Fixity report emails are saved in ScholarsArchive email archive.
Related work
#2551 ; #2421
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: