Test case review requested: CORE-000272 (CG0336) negative 02 test case

[chowsanthony]

I may be running into a bug. Could someone please help view this negative test case?

It follows the same approach as Negative 01. The only difference is the use of a non-General Observation domain (TI), since CG0336 applies to all classes.

Rule ID,SDTMIG Version,Rule Version,Class,Domain,Variable,Condition,Rule
CG0336,3.4,1,ALL,ALL,--CAT,,--CAT ^= Domain Name

[pendingintent]

[pendingintent]

$domain_label is an Output Variable so will be included in the Validation. When in doubt, missing values can be found in the results.json:

"errors": [
        {
          "row": 1,
          "SEQ": 1,
          "USUBJID": "CDISC001",
          "value": {
            "CMCAT": "Concomitant/Prior Medications",
            **"$domain_label": "Concomitant/Prior Medications"**
          },
          "validated": true
        }
      ]

[pendingintent]

Additional information on completing the Validation Sheet · verisianHQ/core-contributor · Discussion #81

[chowsanthony]

@pendingintent Thank you for lending another pair of eyes. From the screenshots I can tell you are not looking at my branch. Negative 02 is now TI, not CM. I changed the test case because it I feel testing a TDM domain is more valuable than testing another General Observation class domain, which the Postive test cases already confirm.

Link to negative test case.

[eljanssens]

@chowsanthony indeed, I don't see anything wrong with your test data. I am wondering if this is due to the '/' in the domain name.
I'm checking with Verisian and will get back to you.

[pendingintent]

This rule check is against the Domain Label ($domain_label) and not the DOMAIN column.

[pendingintent]

This works for the CDISC published rules. I have just been working in the CDISC repo and the negative test cases require some reauthoring. Try and keep the test data as close to the published files in SharePoint.