# "dataintegrity" representing Bad value **URL:** \ **Category:** Module Development\ **Tags:** ignition81, ignition80\ **Created:** [January 23, 2025, 4:13pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297 "2025-01-23T16:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![marius.oancea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@marius.oancea](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/marius.oancea)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2025, 4:13pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/1 "2025-01-23T16:13:18Z")
Hello, Can anyone clarify what the value for `dataintegrity` should be in the case of a "Bad" value in the database? According to the [Ignition documentation on Quality Codes and Overlays](https://www.docs.inductiveautomation.com/docs/8.1/platform/tags/quality-codes-and-overlays#:~:text=A%20Quality%20Code%20represents%20a,generally%20should%20not%20be%20trusted), I believe it should be `512`. However, when I attempt to create a new `QualityCode` using `new QualityCode(512)`, it is reported as "Good". Looking at `QualityCode.VALUE_MAP`, I noticed that `-2147483136` corresponds to "Bad". Could someone help clarify this discrepancy? Thank you Marius ---
**Author:** ![Kevin.Herron](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kevin.herron/32/7259_2.png) [@Kevin.Herron](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Kevin.Herron)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2025, 5:08pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/2 "2025-01-23T17:08:35Z")
The highest 2 bits of the code indicate the Level. There are pre-defined static fields in the QualityCode class you should just reference instead, e.g. ```python QualityCode.Bad ``` There's a helper function on Level you can use too, e.g. ```python QualityCode q = new QualityCode(Level.Bad.code(512)) ``` ---
**Author:** ![marius.oancea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@marius.oancea](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/marius.oancea)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2025, 5:41pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/3 "2025-01-23T17:41:46Z")
So, would it be correct to simply retrieve the `dataintegrity` value from the table, create a `QualityCode` object from it, and then directly check if the quality is good or bad? Iā€™m thinking of something along these lines: ```python final int dataIntegrity = resultSet.getInt("dataintegrity"); final QualityCode qualityCode = new QualityCode(dataIntegrity); if (qualityCode.isNotGood()) { // Handle bad quality ... } ``` Does this approach make sense? ---
**Author:** ![Kevin.Herron](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kevin.herron/32/7259_2.png) [@Kevin.Herron](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Kevin.Herron)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2025, 6:01pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/4 "2025-01-23T18:01:00Z")
> [@marius.oancea](#): > > Does this approach make sense? Yes, assuming that's what is in `dataintegrity` column. Try it and see šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![marius.oancea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@marius.oancea](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/marius.oancea)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2025, 7:37pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/5 "2025-01-23T19:37:30Z")
Should the `dataintegrity` value from `sqlt_data_1_2025_01` be interpreted using `DataQuality.fromIntValue(someInt)` instead of using `QualityCode`? I really need to confirm what `dataintegrity` would contain in the case of a bad value. Would "Bad" be represented as `512` in the table, or as `-2147483647`? ---
**Author:** ![Kurt.Larson](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kurt.larson/32/6426_2.png) [@Kurt.Larson](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Kurt.Larson)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2025, 9:25pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/6 "2025-01-23T21:25:35Z")
In 8.1, the Historian system uses `HistoricalTagValues`, which do use `DataQuality`, not `QualityCode`. It'd be best to go from the `dataintegrity` -\> `DataQuality` -\> `QualityCode` by doing `DataQuality::fromIntValue` -\> `DataQuality::getQualityCode`. There isn't a `512` corresponding user code within `DataQuality`. When storing the `DataQuality` integer value within the 8.1 Historian implementations, the `DataQuality::getQualityFor` method is used to determine the matching `DataQuality` for the given `QualityCode` (as part of the original `QualifiedValue`). So, in this example, a `Bad(512)` `QualityCode` would return `DataQuality.OPC_BAD_DATA`, which has an integer value of 0. Use `DataQuality::getQualityCode` when reading the data integrity value back out, and call `DataQuality::isOpcBadData()` to account for bad qualities. ---
**Author:** ![marius.oancea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@marius.oancea](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/marius.oancea)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2025, 4:55pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/7 "2025-01-27T16:55:43Z")
I do not think this would work. The customer has in the table: ```python timestamp dataintegrity ------------------------------------------------------ 16/01/2025 9:59:31.071 192 16/01/2025 5:56:30.637 0 16/01/2025 5:56:30.161 192 16/01/2025 1:53:29.456 0 ``` With Ignition 7, `dataintegrity = 0` would mean "bad data," but the customer says that in Ignition 8, `dataintegrity = 0` would mean "unspecified." If we use `dataintegrity -> DataQuality` approach, we get **"Bad Quality"** for `dataintegrity = 0`. - `DataQuality.fromIntValue(0)` is shown as **"Bad Quality"**. - `DataQuality.fromIntValue(192)` is shown as **"Good"** as expected. However: - If we try `new QualityCode(0)`, we get **"Good\_Unspecified"** , which I think is correct. - `new QualityCode(192)` is shown as **"Good"**. - `new QualityCode(193)` is shown as **"Good(193)"**. Do we perhaps need to use `dataintegrity -> QualityCode` instead? Thank you, Marius ---
**Author:** ![Kurt.Larson](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/kurt.larson/32/6426_2.png) [@Kurt.Larson](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Kurt.Larson)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2025, 5:42pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/dataintegrity-representing-bad-value/101297/8 "2025-02-18T17:42:16Z")
Sorry for the delayed response. > With Ignition 7, `dataintegrity = 0` would mean "bad data," but the customer says that in Ignition 8, `dataintegrity = 0` would mean "unspecified." That isn't true. The quality code you see stored within the customer table is the same in 8.1 as it is in 7.9. A `dataintegrity = 600` would be `UNKNOWN`, whereas a `dataintegrity = 0` is `OPC_BAD_DATA`. You're confusing the `dataintegrity` value with `QualityCode`, which this isn't; it is a [DataQuality](https://files.inductiveautomation.com/sdk/javadoc/ignition81/8.1.45/com/inductiveautomation/ignition/common/sqltags/model/types/DataQuality.html). An integer value of `0` for `QualityCode` is `Good_Unspecified`, but for `DataQuality` it is `OPC_BAD_DATA`. Again, all the integer values stored within the `dataintegrity` table are the 7.9 `DataQuality`. This was never changed to the new quality system for compatibility purposes. Values stored within the history system are a `HistoricalTagValue`. You can see [here](https://files.inductiveautomation.com/sdk/javadoc/ignition81/8.1.45/com/inductiveautomation/ignition/gateway/history/HistoricalTagValue.html) that the quality model used is `DataQuality`.