| Issue Number | 4370 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Gauss QA Testing] Validation for QC Filter Tests |
| Created | 2018-01-05 14:49:21 |
| Issue Type | Bug |
| Submitted By | Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2018-01-06 08:47:49 |
| Resolution | Won't Fix |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/ocecdr/issue.219398 |
Running a QC filter test with validation fails with the following
error (from publish.log):
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "D:\cdr\lib\Python\cdrpub.py", line 2458, in __publishDocList
self.__publishDoc (doc, filters, destType, destDir, subDir)
File "D:\cdr\lib\Python\cdrpub.py", line 2596, in __publishDoc
self.__params['DTDFileName']))
KeyError: 'DTDFileName'
Open the Admin interface:
Developers/System Administrators
--> Publishing
--> QcFilterSets
--> QC DrugInfoSummary Set
--> Validate Docs: Set to 'Yes'
--> Submit
--> Publish
The job blew up because you asked the CDR to validate the output from a QC filter set, but the control document doesn't specify a DTD location for the QC publishing subsystems. And that omission is appropriate, because the output from the QC filter sets will never be valid against the PDQ dtd (heck, the output might not even be well-formed XML). You'd get the same error on another tier without Gauss. Try your job without asking for validation. Or ask for validation with a vendor filter set.
OK, I have to say I feel a bit stupid now because I should have figured that out myself. In my defense, however, I'm German! If I'm testing and there is an option to change I will try to break the system.
We probably shouldn't offer an option for validation in the control document for these QC reports when validation doesn't make sense. Maybe we want to add a ticket for Hawking to adjust the file QcFilterSets.xml. What do you think?
Ausgezeichnet! Doesn't have to be in Hawking, though, since that's a release-independent change.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.001561