Limitation in age at death in burial entry when over 100 years old about myopicvicar HOT 13 CLOSED

Vino thinks this could be a quick fix

from myopicvicar.

Another--- "person_age"=>"103y6m",

This is not an error and should not need correcting.

from myopicvicar.

It surely should be important for the integrity of our data, that any record which is correct should be searchable?

eg "person_age"=>"103y6m",

This is correct and should be searchable.

from myopicvicar.

@suffolkroots Age is not a searchable field. This issue is about making it possible to enter 103y6m when transcribing an entry.

from myopicvicar.

@SteveBiggs this record was not searchable as the age was marked as an error. In order to make it searchable I amended the age and added a note. As the age was not wrong in the first place, this should not be necessary.

from myopicvicar.

Ali, I'm agreeing with you. The "error" prevented the entry from being processed into the database so would not be there to be found in a search. That's why I raised this story and when it's fixed, FreeREG will accept age records above 100 in the same format as those below 100.

from myopicvicar.

@Vino-S needs to do some more tests to identify the scale of this issue

from myopicvicar.

Tested and working in test3

from myopicvicar.

We also need to check that the documentation is correct for recording the age at death in: "Entering data from registers" and the flexible (extended) burial fields.

from myopicvicar.

The Help on age at death makes no mention of ages above 100 so I don't think it needs changing.

from myopicvicar.

I've just been looking and I agree! (Did not want to miss any disinformation.)

from myopicvicar.

Code deployed to production

from myopicvicar.

Done: closing

from myopicvicar.