Forums: Validation Rule Suggestions
Hi Amelia,
Sd0038 check ignores missing values and is not expected to fire in your example. Could you provide more details on your validation process and data.
E.g., if you are exporting data from SAS to some delimited format, it could preserve SAS missing values as '.' in a new text format. As a result, the CODY variable could have '.' value instead of a missing one. Then you will receive SD0038 message.
Kind Regards,
Sergiy
Hi Sergyi,
I think you are right, SAS Viewer shows that my CODY column contains a "."
I assumed first this is how the viewer displays the emtpy numeric columns: since all columns that are numeric but have empty content appear as a ".".
But you say that this is an issue in the internal representation of the XPTs and the "." should not be there, right?
Amelia,
As I said, those are quite weird results I've never had experience with. Also nobody has complained yet about such issue with the SD0038 check.
Missing numeric values in SAS data should be OK. However you do not expect to see '.' characters in SAS Viewer instead of empty cells. It looks like something wrong with you data. Please ensure that CODY variable is Numeric, rather than Char in SAS dataset.
Regards,
Sergiy
Hello all,
SEND specs & examples suggest that CODY / CODTC should be fed usually for comments that are related to the study in general. And that CODY / CODTC are not necessary for comments related directly to domain records (since we already have the date information in the domain record's --DTC and --DY).
But when having in CO a comment row e.g. related to a MA record and without the CODY/CODTC info, one gets the SD0038 warning:
<val:Regex ID="SD0038" Variable="%Variables[*DY]%" Test="-?[1-9][0-9]*" Message="Value of Study Day variable equals 0" Description="Study Day variables (*DY) value should not equal 0" Category="Limit" Type="Warning"/>
I would suggest disabling this rules for CO. What do you think?
Best regards,
Amelia