Adds a Special Missing Values section to the Data Validation page, covering what each rule does with a SAS special missing (.A-.Z, ._), plus a pointer from the rule table.
What was verified (against a real SAS estate, and against the deployed frontend validator in a real browser):
NOTNULL - fails. A special missing is null to a SAS NOT NULL / primary key constraint, and a physical constraint on the target table rejects it with an integrity constraint error.
MINVAL - fails if the minimum is a number: a missing sorts below every number, so it is below any numeric floor. A floor that is itself a special missing is compared in the order the missing values have among themselves, and can accept one.
MAXVAL - passes against a numeric ceiling, for the same reason. A ceiling that is itself a special missing is compared in the missing values' own order, and can reject one.
CASE - not applicable (character rule).
ROUND - ignored; it only rounds values that are numbers.
HARDREGEX / SOFTREGEX - checked like any other value; not exempt (the Regex Rules section already says this, now cross-referenced).
SOFTSELECT - passes; HARDSELECT - passes when the list holds the missing: the dropdown lists it as a bare letter alongside the ordinary values, and the rule accepts it like any other listed value (a value that is not in the list is still rejected).
HARDFORMULA / SOFTFORMULA - returns #VALUE! for the row rather than a number.
The section also documents the order itself, because a range rule compares in it: every missing below every non-missing value, and the missing values ordered ._, then the regular missing, then .A through .Z. So MINVAL .A with MAXVAL .C accepts .B and rejects .D. A rule value that is neither a number nor a special missing satisfies nothing.
The companion frontend change (the range rules comparing in SAS's order, and NOTNULL rejecting a special missing on a numeric column) is in dc/dc PR #323, which should merge first.
Adds a **Special Missing Values** section to the Data Validation page, covering what each rule does with a SAS special missing (`.A`-`.Z`, `._`), plus a pointer from the rule table.
What was verified (against a real SAS estate, and against the deployed frontend validator in a real browser):
- **NOTNULL** - fails. A special missing is null to a SAS NOT NULL / primary key constraint, and a physical constraint on the target table rejects it with an integrity constraint error.
- **MINVAL** - fails if the minimum is a number: a missing sorts below every number, so it is below any numeric floor. A floor that is itself a special missing is compared in the order the missing values have among themselves, and can accept one.
- **MAXVAL** - passes against a numeric ceiling, for the same reason. A ceiling that is itself a special missing is compared in the missing values' own order, and can reject one.
- **CASE** - not applicable (character rule).
- **ROUND** - ignored; it only rounds values that are numbers.
- **HARDREGEX / SOFTREGEX** - checked like any other value; not exempt (the Regex Rules section already says this, now cross-referenced).
- **SOFTSELECT** - passes; **HARDSELECT** - passes when the list holds the missing: the dropdown lists it as a bare letter alongside the ordinary values, and the rule accepts it like any other listed value (a value that is not in the list is still rejected).
- **HARDFORMULA / SOFTFORMULA** - returns `#VALUE!` for the row rather than a number.
The section also documents the order itself, because a range rule compares in it: every missing below every non-missing value, and the missing values ordered `._`, then the regular missing, then `.A` through `.Z`. So `MINVAL .A` with `MAXVAL .C` accepts `.B` and rejects `.D`. A rule value that is neither a number nor a special missing satisfies nothing.
The companion frontend change (the range rules comparing in SAS's order, and NOTNULL rejecting a special missing on a numeric column) is in dc/dc PR #323, which should merge first.
New Special Missing Values section covering NOTNULL, MINVAL/MAXVAL, CASE,
ROUND, the regex rules, the dropdowns and the formula rules, with the
'not supported' set called out. Behaviour verified against a real SAS
estate and the deployed frontend validator.
- a primary key column rejects a blank and a special missing whether or not
the table carries a constraint or MPE_VALIDATIONS a NOTNULL rule
- HARDSELECT is now checked like any other value: it passes when the
dropdown list contains the special missing
- HARDSELECT drops out of the 'not supported' list
Three corrections to the special missing section:
- the period is optional: a special missing is typed as `a` or `.a`, `_` or `._`
- MINVAL and MAXVAL both accept a missing value, and both still reject a real
number that is out of range. A minimum constrains a number, and a missing is
not a number - NOTNULL is the rule for a column that must be populated
- only NOTNULL and the formulas actually reject a special missing, so the
"not supported" summary is replaced with what does reject it and what does not
A range rule keys both the cell value and its own value into the order SAS uses
for a numeric variable: every missing below every non-missing value, and the
missing values ordered ._ then the regular missing then .A through .Z. So a range
can be written in special missings and mean what SAS means by it - MINVAL .A with
MAXVAL .C accepts .B and rejects .D - and the numeric cases follow from the same
order: a missing fails a numeric MINVAL and passes a numeric MAXVAL, and a number
sits above every missing.
Replaces the "a range rule ignores a missing value" wording, which described the
previous take's behaviour rather than SAS's.
MINVAL and MAXVAL now say what a special missing does to them and that the bound
itself may be a special missing, pointing at the Special Missing Values section,
since that is the least obvious thing about them.
Also in that section: the framing sentence covers the range rules' ordering, the
summary sentence is rewritten (it read badly), and the arrow in the ROUND row is
plain ASCII.
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
allan
Adds a Special Missing Values section to the Data Validation page, covering what each rule does with a SAS special missing (
.A-.Z,._), plus a pointer from the rule table.What was verified (against a real SAS estate, and against the deployed frontend validator in a real browser):
#VALUE!for the row rather than a number.The section also documents the order itself, because a range rule compares in it: every missing below every non-missing value, and the missing values ordered
._, then the regular missing, then.Athrough.Z. SoMINVAL .AwithMAXVAL .Caccepts.Band rejects.D. A rule value that is neither a number nor a special missing satisfies nothing.The companion frontend change (the range rules comparing in SAS's order, and NOTNULL rejecting a special missing on a numeric column) is in dc/dc PR #323, which should merge first.