Here are a series of data checks between the LDP and Metadb to verify the accuracy of Metadb data after the February 7-9 software updates
| Date | Test | LDP Results | Metadb Results | Notes | Tester |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2/11/25 | key counts - CR222 and MCR222 | Sharon | |||
| 2/10/25 | Count of pol_ids from primary tables, 1-15-25 through 2-9-25 LDP: po-lines Metadb: folio_orders.po_line | 1,387 | 1,387 | Joanne | |
| 2/10/25 | Count of item_ids from primary tables, 1-15-25 through 2-9-25. LDP: inventory_items Metadb: folio_inventory.item | 8,953 | 8,927 | LDP count is higher. Maybe items were deleted today that had previously been created before today? | Joanne |
| 2/10/25 | Count of loan_ids from primary tables 1-15-25 through 2-9-25 LDP: circulation_loans Metadb: folio_circulation.loan | 21,725 | 21,693 with "date"; 21,727 with "timestamptz" | Total of loan_ids change for Metadb when casting the date as "timestamptz." Date types don't make a difference in the totals for LDP. | Joanne |
| 2/10/25 | Count of holdings_ids from derived tables, created 1-15-25 through 2-9-25 LDP: folio_reporting.holdings_ext metadb: folio_derived.holdings_ext | 14,206 | 12,565 | LDP greater. Metadb is missing counts for 2-4-25 through 2-9-25 inclusive in the sample date range; there may be other gaps | Joanne |
| 2/10/25 | Count of holdings_id from primary tables, 1-15-25 through 2-9-25 LDP: inventory_holdings Metadb: folio_inventory.holdings_record | 14,206 | 14,206 | They match in the primary tables, with date fields cast as "date" | Joanne |