_read_vvrs() assumes each VVR is in order
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Bug
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 92
- Forks
- 47
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
When the locations of VVRs are given to _read_vvrs(), it is assumed that they are in order, i.e.
VVR1 - Records 0-100
VVR2 - Records 101-200
VVR3 - Records 201-300
However, there is no requirement for VVRs to be in the "correct" order.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the _read_vvrs() entry point and read how it maps VVR locations to record ranges. Check whether existing tests cover VVR ordering; done means the reader handles VVRs supplied in an order different from their record ranges without changing the resulting records.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100