Lance

What is causing all the red flags for me is your statements on 5/3 that everything could be fixed just by adding null columns at the end to make everything equal For my case the "missing" cells are at the end of a row. So if: 1. there's one more header column than data columns I'd expect the last data column to have a null header 2. there's one more header column than data columns I'd expect each data row to have a null value for the last header 3. the data rows have different column counts I'd expect...

What is causing all the red flags for me is your statements on 5/3 that everything could be fixed just by adding null columns at the end to make everything equal For my case the "missing" cells are at the end of a row. So if: 1. there's one more header column than data columns I'd expect the last data column to have a null header 2. there's one more header column than data columns I'd expect each data row to have a null value for the last header As you can see in row 2 the missing data was my name...

One of my pet hates is naming booleans as negative (eg disableX) because it leads to code like if (!rowLengthCheckingDisabled) { // two negatives make a positive (not of disabled means enabled) validateRowLength(...); } I much prefer naming booleans as positive (eg validateRowLength) and set it to false mappingStrategy.validateRowLength(false)

One of my pet hates is naming booleans as negative (eg disableX) because it leads to code like if (!rowLengthCheckingDisabled) { // two negatives make a positive (not of disabled means enabled) } I much prefer naming booleans as positive (eg validateRowLength) and set it to false mappingStrategy.validateRowLength(false)

One of my pet hates is naming booleans as negative (eg disableX) because it leads to code like if (!rowLengthCheckingDisabled) { // not of disabled means enabled } I much prefer naming booleans as positive (eg validateRowLength) and set it to false mappingStrategy.validateRowLength(false)

One of my pet hates is naming booleans as negative (eg disableX) because it leads to code like if (!rowLengthCheckingDisabled) { // not of disabled means enabled } I much prefer naming booleans as positive (eg validateRowLength) and set it to false rowMapper.validateRowLength(false)

One of my pet hates is naming booleans as negative (eg disableX) because it leads to code like if (!rowLengthCheckingDisabled) { // not of disabled means enabled } I much prefer naming booleans as positive (eg rowLengthCheckingEnabled) and set it to false rowMapper.rowLengthCheckingEnabled(false)