This is related to issues 1059, 1081, 1082. These issues are closed closed, but AJ found a problem when implementing some rules. I (Daniel) looked into this and I think that we neglected to update a few rules. I.e., we updated the *PartyReference rules in shared and FX. But we must have missed IRD. Possibly … Continued
Rules: ref-14 to ref-24, ref-31, ref-36, ref-37 are commented out in the documentation-source XML. They were removed in the transition from 4.x to 5.x. They need to be reviewed and updated/included in the next release. Also some other rules are commented out and they need to be reviewed.
The rule was written when dayType could be only “Business” or “Calandar”, whereas now it can have also other values. The current annotation reads: “A type defining an offset used in calculating a new date relative to a reference date. Currently, the only offsets defined are expected to be expressed as either calendar or business … Continued
The commodityReferencePriceScheme scheme uses codes like the following: FREIGHT-BALTIC EXCHANGE-PANAMAX INDEX ROUTE P2 or BALTIC P2 If both FREIGHT-BALTIC EXCHANGE-PANAMAX INDEX ROUTE P2 and BALTIC P2 are acceptable and equivalent codes, there should two entries in the genericode file. At the moment an application would not be able to validate these codes using the genericode … Continued
We need to organize better rules with relation to views. 1) Some rules that were present in 4.9 have been removed from the conf view in 5.x because they apply to the reporting view. But they are not included in the reporting view. 2) Many ID/IDREF Rules apply to multiple views. But they are included … Continued
Submitted via email by Dafna Aharonovich I have a question relating rule col-8: I find that there is an inconsistency between the English Description and the XPath Description: To my understanding, according to the English description, the given invalid test case is correct, i.e., invalid However, according to the Xpath description it is valid, and … Continued
We received this email: Quick rules question hoping you can help to clarify In 5.x the rules Ref-14-24 are missing in the confirmation view, yet there is no reference to them being removed I was wondering what the story behind this was any insights??
Some examples are invalid with respect to validation rules. They need to be fixed.
We have rules that impose the uniqueness of partyId and accountId. We need to check that we have rules that do the same for otehr IDs. E.g., instrumentId.
This issue is related to http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=1082 The Coordination Committe discussed 6/18 a solution that may break backward compatibility. Marc will develop a proposal for review by the Standards Committee. The change would be implemented in 5.4.