Aglet

How to investigate an import mapping mismatch

Investigate an import path by following one small synthetic input from selection through preview, mapping, validation, persistence, and result message. Keep the source boundary explicit. Possible causes include parser assumptions, ambiguous field names, validation order, non-atomic writes, or a result page that reads stale records.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Reconstruct the mapping

    List each source field, selected destination, normalization rule, required status, and preview value. Compare what the preview promises with the request and persisted fields. Note unmapped or transformed data and keep the fixture free of personal or secret values.

  2. Trace validation and writes

    Run valid, malformed, duplicate, and partially invalid fixtures. Record validation order, row-level errors, transaction boundaries, saved-record count, and final status. Treat partial persistence as unknown until the durable records and response agree for the same input.

  3. Follow retry and recovery

    Retry an interrupted or rejected fixture and compare identifiers, duplicates, and mapping choices. Check whether a refreshed result page reflects the same import attempt. Record what recovery action is actually available; do not imply rollback or reprocessing if the workflow lacks it.

What to carry forward

The investigation is ready when parsing, mapping, validation, persistence, and retry can be traced for one controlled fixture, with unsupported source types named. Deliver the first mismatch and distinguish a saved partial result from an unobserved or intentionally unsupported path.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow