When I wrote the Assignment and Comparison Rules, I specified:
| Type |
Source Category |
Source DTF |
Target Category |
Target DTF |
Result |
| 1A |
String |
No |
String |
No |
String |
| 1B |
String |
Yes |
String |
No |
String |
| 1C |
Numeric |
No |
String |
No |
Numeric |
| 1D |
Numeric |
Yes |
String |
No |
Numeric |
| 2A |
String |
No |
String |
Yes |
String |
| 2B |
String |
Yes |
String |
Yes |
Date |
| 2C |
Numeric |
No |
String |
Yes |
Numeric |
| 2D |
Numeric |
Yes |
String |
Yes |
Date |
| 3A |
String |
No |
Numeric |
No |
Numeric |
| 3B |
String |
Yes |
Numeric |
No |
Numeric |
| 3C |
Numeric |
No |
Numeric |
No |
Numeric |
| 3D |
Numeric |
Yes |
Numeric |
No |
Numeric |
| 4A |
String |
No |
Numeric |
Yes |
Numeric |
| 4B |
String |
Yes |
Numeric |
Yes |
Date |
| 4C |
Numeric |
No |
Numeric |
Yes |
Numeric |
| 4D |
Numeric |
Yes |
Numeric |
Yes |
Date |
But now I believe that this design will cause many compare failures between MR91 and RCA.
We should test these conditions (with lookup not-found cases) using both MR91 and RCA and verify that they compare correctly.
When I wrote the Assignment and Comparison Rules, I specified:
But now I believe that this design will cause many compare failures between MR91 and RCA.
We should test these conditions (with lookup not-found cases) using both MR91 and RCA and verify that they compare correctly.