Skip to content

Conversation

@Shaakon35
Copy link
Collaborator

Issue

Closes #561

How to test

Now, you can try to submit PP in Pinnacle 21 and it should work!

Contributor checklist

  • Code passes lintr checks
  • Code passes all unit tests
  • New logic covered by unit tests
  • New logic is documented
  • Package version is incremented

@Shaakon35 Shaakon35 linked an issue Aug 14, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@Shaakon35 Shaakon35 changed the title length 12 length 12 for PPORRES Aug 14, 2025
@Shaakon35 Shaakon35 changed the title length 12 for PPORRES length 12 for PPSTRESN Aug 14, 2025
@Shaakon35 Shaakon35 requested a review from Gero1999 August 14, 2025 13:25
Copy link
Collaborator

@Gero1999 Gero1999 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Shaakon35 I run on P21 and found still the issues

# Parameter Variables
PPORRES = as.character(round(as.numeric(PPORRES), 12)),
PPSTRESN = round(as.numeric(PPSTRES), 12),
PPSTRESC = as.character(format(PPSTRESN, scientific = FALSE, trim = TRUE)),
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider not doing this

issues:

  • PPSTRESN does not still match PPSTRESC in the conflictive row (XX01-25103, AUCPEP, Analyte01)
  • doing this there is a problem with the scientific nomenclature if you do not force it to FALSE...

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I don't do this, I have an issue with PPSTRESC decimal values = 0000 at the end
image

R/export_cdisc.R Outdated
} else if (var_specs$Type %in% c("Num", "integer", "float") &&
!endsWith(var, "DTM")) {
df[[var]] <- round(as.numeric(df[[var]]), var_specs$Length)
df[[var]] <- round(as.numeric(df[[var]]), 12)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

as mentioned I think the problem is the round() operation, not the number itself, no need to do it, it can be the reason of the differences PPSTRESN, PPSTRESC

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Shaakon35 Shaakon35 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still does not work

image

PPSTRESC have 000 at the end

@Gero1999

@Gero1999
Copy link
Collaborator

I think that still is not a problem in the XPT submission file, but as this is not priority I will let this PR breathe and think about it

@Shaakon35
Copy link
Collaborator Author

All good !

  • Dummy ADPP passed all the ADPP checks of Pinnacle 21
  • Dummy PP passed all the PP checks of Pinnacle 21 except:
    SD1282: PPTPTREF variable is present when PPELTM, PPTPTNUM, and PPTPT are missing
    But this one is not possible to solve, we might also get ride of PPTPTREF but then we will have the warning: Missing PPTPTREF

Gero1999 and others added 3 commits September 3, 2025 11:29
some things has changed, including:
all numerics -> length = 12
PPGRPID -> length = 100
@Shaakon35
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Shaakon35 commented Sep 10, 2025

@Gero1999 Ready to review.

All good, now PP passed Pinnacle 21 checks, with two NCA_PROFILE selected.
I changed metadata_nca_variables.rda and updated it from the gsheet
all numerics -> length = 12
PPGRPID -> length = 100

@Shaakon35
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Gero1999 Waiting for review

Copy link
Collaborator

@m-kolomanski m-kolomanski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code-wise looks good, just a minor suggestion

Comment on lines +404 to +417
PPORRES = as.numeric(
substr(
as.numeric(round(PPORRES, 8)),
0,
8 + grepl("\\.", as.character(PPORRES))
)
),
PPSTRESN = as.numeric(
substr(
as.numeric(round(PPSTRES, 8)),
0,
8 + grepl("\\.", as.character(PPSTRES))
)
),
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

suggestion: This probably should be enclosed in a separate helper function, as the logic is repeated.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you are right, this is my bad. I can take care of it during my review @Shaakon35

@Gero1999
Copy link
Collaborator

Hey @Shaakon35 still having the issues with PPSTRESN != PPSTRESC unfortunately 😓

@js3110 js3110 marked this pull request as draft December 23, 2025 15:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug: PPSTRESN != PPSTRESC

4 participants