What is the test used to determine whether an action taken in violation of a statutory provision is valid?

The principle at work here is well settled. "[A] 'mandatory-directory' distinction is used to determine whether action taken in violation of a statutory provision is valid. Failure to comply with a mandatory provision renders the action void; failure to comply with a merely directory provision does not. Which way to characterize [a] provision depends on its importance [21 Cal.App.4th 566] in the legislative scheme. [Citations.]" (Myers v. Patterson (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 130, 135, 241 Cal.Rptr. 751.) At the same time, not every provision which is "mandatory" in the sense of being obligatory has invalidating effect. "The 'mandatory-directory' test used to determine validity is analytically distinct from the 'mandatory-permissive' test used to determine the nature of duty. [Citations.] The tests are related in the sense that procedures which are purely permissive in the sense of duty are generally regarded as directory and thus not invalidating. 'The converse of this proposition is not always true, however, for ... "[m]any statutory provisions which are 'mandatory' in the obligatory sense are accorded only 'directory' effect." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Id., at p. 136, 241 Cal.Rptr. 751.)