Page 1 of 1
New Membership Validation Report Errors
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:39 pm
Tonight when I did a Send/Receive, I received new membership validation report errors for previously validated ward members. The errors are in regard to priesthood ordinations, stating that "The person performing [insert Mel. Priesthood office here] Ordination must have his surname specified."
Apparently, the Send/Receive downloaded at least one new set of validation rules for the Membership Validation Report to verify. I wonder how often this occurs without us even knowing. It doesn't appear that any MLS version number or build number have incremented in this process, which does make sense because that likely corresponds to just the Java codebase. I imagine these validation rules are designed to be in a separate module of the application, able to be swapped in and out and updated even during runtime, very similar to a Business Rules engine.
Just FYI for everyone else I guess.
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:21 pm
As an update, we have 4 such errors on our Membership Validation Report. The errors are all correct that I am missing the names of the brethren performing the ordinations. However, I am figuring out that we have many more records with this problem that are not showing up in the validation report with the same error. I cannot for the life of me figure out what the difference is between those triggering a validation error and those not.
Also, why is this priesthood ordination validation rule an error and not just a warning? I don't see why I shouldn't be able to continue making changes to the membership records because of this issue (which goes back to the fact that the Church software and record keeping weren't recording this information for a period of time a few years back). This is the explanatory paragraph directly above the validation report:
The following table lists errors and warnings found in membership records in your unit. You should make corrections to these errors and warnings as soon as possible. If a record has errors in it, other changes cannot be made to the record until the errors are fixed.
I just don't see this "who performed the priesthood ordination" issue has a mission critical error that must be fixed before continuing other clerking duties with the membership record.
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:24 pm
mkmurray wrote:I just don't see this "who performed the priesthood ordination" issue has a mission critical error that must be fixed before continuing other clerking duties with the membership record.
Also of note, I just updated an email address for one of these 4 members triggering the validation error. Nothing stopped me from making the modification nor rejected the data change after fact.
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:22 am
So I take it from the silence that no one else is seeing inconsistency in this particular Membership Validation Report error regarding priesthood ordinations? Is anyone else even getting this validation error at all, regardless of any inconsistency?
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:14 pm
I know of two or three brethren in my ward who are missing this information. I'll run a validation report next time I'm at the church (if I remember) and report back over the weekend.
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:28 pm
mkmurray wrote:So I take it from the silence that no one else is seeing inconsistency in this particular Membership Validation Report error regarding priesthood ordinations? Is anyone else even getting this validation error at all, regardless of any inconsistency?
With a ward of almost 700, I am sure there will be missing some names of those performing the ordination but the last validation report had none listed.
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:33 pm
So, I was able to confirm that two brethren in my ward are missing a name of a person that ordained them. Only one of them shows up on the Membership Validation Report. So this rule doesn't seem to be entirely consistent. I don't see an obvious explanation for why.
What struck me as most curious, though, was my own record. I added an individual phone number to my record at the previous send/receive, and when the report came back, I would have expected a notification that a change had been made to my phone number. Instead, I got a notification that the person performing my ordination was changed. I doubt the two issues are related, but it struck me as funny that both issues dealt with some quirk in the person ordaining field.