TANF Section 1 validation clean-up

[ADPennington]

Description:

After #2369 is implemented, some of the validation checks for TANF Section 1 data need updates, either due to on-going revisions OFA is making based on STT feedback to the new coding instructions or because the pre-specified checks have not been implemented. These include:

• DATE_OF_BIRTH in the T2 and T3 records are stored and validated as integers instead of date (YYYYMMDD)
  • Moved to As an STT, I need to know if there are issues with the DOBs reported in my data files #2746
• WORK_PART_STATUS values are 01,02,05,07,09,15,16,17,18,99
• if item 48 == 11 and AGE < 19, then item 38 != 1
• FIPS_CODE still needs to be stored in T1 from the header record (state_fips)
• FUNDING_STREAM value options will revert back to only having 2 options. OFA has decided not to use value 3.
• GENDER should allow for space-fill (T2 and T3)
• OTHER_AMOUNT and TRANSITION_SERVICES_AMOUNT should be excluded from sum amount cat 3 validator.
• DISPOSITION only has one possible value now. anything that isnt 1 should be flagged as out of range.

Acceptance Criteria:
Create a list of functional outcomes that must be achieved to complete this issue

• validation checks noted above are accounted for
• Testing Checklist has been run and all tests pass
• README is updated, if necessary

Tasks:
Create a list of granular, specific work items that must be completed to deliver the desired outcomes of this issue

• Task 1
• Task 2
• Task 3
• Run Testing Checklist and confirm all tests pass

Notes:
Add additional useful information, such as related issues and functionality that isn't covered by this specific issue, and other considerations that will be helpful for anyone reading this

• @ADPennington to create an ssp section 1 enhancement ticket
• Note 2
• Note 3

Supporting Documentation:
Please include any relevant log snippets/files/screen shots

• TANF Sec 1 WorkBook
• Doc 2

Open Questions:
Please include any questions or decisions that must be made before beginning work or to confidently call this issue complete

• Open Question 1
• Open Question 2

[ADPennington]

in scenarios where fam affil == 3: caretaker, some states (e.g. SD) will space-fill many of the T2 data values. this is currently being flagged as errors in prod @lfrohlich @ysong001 @ttran-hub

[ysong001]

that would be problem, as states did use space-fill before

[ADPennington]

@ysong001 TDRS and TDP suggests that maybe only a handful of states are doing this. to be sure, we'll need to look into the T2 data elements in TDRS that have space-filled values for items like: PARENT_MINOR_CHILD, NEEDS_PREGNANT_WOMAN,EDUCATION_LEVEL, etc.

[ADPennington]

Tracking STTs with space-filled values for Section 1 data elements (using FY23Q1 data)

T1 records

T2 records

T3 records

[ysong001]

I was wondering if the non-required person can use blanks, CA asked that they use blanks for the data elements they don't report

[ADPennington]

given the results above and given our coding instructions guidance (referenced below) we should discuss how to handle.

One reminder is that, currently, while these issues will appear in the feedback report, the data are still being added to the db.

Each item needs to hold a certain number of spaces in the flat file. If your system does not automatically hold the spaces, see the file layout for the number of spaces (length) that need to be held. If an element is not applicable or no longer in use, enter the number of digits (zeros or blanks)

[ADPennington]

@ysong001 @lfrohlich i'm creating a new ticket for space-filling.

[ADPennington]

@jtimpe this ticket has been refined.

[ADPennington]

tanf section 1 workbook: https://gorafttech.sharepoint.com/sites/TDRSResearchDesign/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FTDRSResearchDesign%2FShared%20Documents%2FDev%2Fdev%2FParsing%2Fdata%2Ftanf%2FSection1&viewid=981949f0%2D98e1%2D4ace%2D8da8%2D436aca592a46

[ADPennington]

for the case number fix needed, can we explore using isalpha() validator instead of isalnum()

[ADPennington]

for the case number fix needed, can we explore using isalpha() validator instead of isalnum()

moved this to #2794

[ADPennington]

capturing sync with @ysong001 on 3/5:

• we need to add back value 08 as valid possible value for item 49 (WPS) for 2-par calculation.

[ADPennington]

capturing sync with @ysong001 on 3/5:

• we need to add back value 08 as valid possible value for item 49 (WPS) for 2-par calculation.

per today's DIGIT meeting we decided not to implement this change. cc: @ysong001 @elipe17

[elipe17]

capturing sync with @ysong001 on 3/5:

• we need to add back value 08 as valid possible value for item 49 (WPS) for 2-par calculation.

per today's DIGIT meeting we decided not to implement this change. cc: @ysong001 @elipe17

@ADPennington copy that. Thank you for clarifying. I have updated the PR with your other recommendations and re-requested your review.