Conversation
vyasworks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be done WHILE PARSING and not as a post parsing DB operation.
That is correct - this change has been included in the TDI 34 Details class. The script for updating the old data could run once and then be removed (unless there is a better way to update the old data entries?) |
Correct, we should write migrations for that. (port the controller function to a new migration file) it is not feasible to run make commands for each of these envs, manually. |
fa86f89 to
80aaebd
Compare
8e7efcf to
d920979
Compare
Okay sounds good. I think I have resolved this, please re-review when you have time. |
| @@ -1,26 +1,3 @@ | |||
| export const transactionCode = (code: string) => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reason for removal?
Was this used before?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When we first built out the parsing I had included this as a nested field, but then removed in order to keep the flat files "flat" as we had discussed handling any mapping etc after the flat files had been parsed. (This was pre-database, I think we were still using the files in cyber duck at that time ?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was no criteria or specs re: the adjustment to the transaction_amt field based on these values at that time.
CCFPCM-0369
Objective:
Parse TDI34 refunds
Script to update current db entries