Both samples, invalid-fx-46-01.xml and invalid-fx-47-01.xml are invalid against their own rules, but also invalid against each other’s rules. As per the FpML rule specification guidelines each invalid sample must only be invalid against one rule. Please fiz the samples to be invalid against their own rules only.
The rule fx-46 has an XPath statement that should be a value. In the HTML file some parts of the rule are given in bold and this appears to be a way to indicate that this is a value and not an XPath. If the rule is interpreted strictly as per FpML rule specification guidelines … Continued
The validation rule sample invalid-fx-45-01.xml does not exercise rule fx-45. The rule today is: ” fx-45 (Mandatory) Context: FxAverageRateOption (complex type) [exists(fxOptionPremium)] buyerPartyReference/@href = fxOptionPremium/payerPartyReference/@href and sellerPartyReference/@href = fxOptionPremium/receiverPartyReference/@href. Test cases: [Invalid] ” The problem is that the sample is a Digital Option, not a FXAverageRateOption: CITI10019 UBSW20019 2001-11-12 Double no touch
The following FX Rules require extending to support Contracts in addition to Trades. fx-36 fx-37 fx-38 fx-39 fx-40
The rules fx-26 has an unhandled condition. There is a test on fxSingleLegvalueDate, but this field may not exist. The outcome is undefined if the field does not exist. According to the FpML Rules Specification the outcome must always evaluate to 1 boolean result for each test. The rule today: ” fx-26 (Mandatory) Context: FxSwap … Continued
fx-24 refers to //element(*, FXOptionLeg)/rate which is an element that does not exist in FpML. The rule today: ” fx-24 (Mandatory) Context: FxOptionLeg (complex type) rate > 0. ” The element rate does not exist in this context.
The rule invalid-fx-24-01.xml does not exercise rule fx-24. There is no element matching the context of //element(*, FxOptionLeg). The proposed solution is to fix the sample so that it does exercise the rule.
fx-13 should be written out as per the FpML rule specification guidelines. The rule today is: ” fx-13 (Mandatory) Context: FxAverageRateOption (complex type) [exists(averageRateObservationDate elements)] Each observedRates/observationDate should match one of the dates defined by averageRateObservationDate/observationDate. ” 1. The use of “should” must be replace with something stronger (like “must”). 2. The function “match” is … Continued
The current fx-12 leaves a large amount to interpretation: ” fx-12 (Mandatory) Context: FxAverageRateOption (complex type) [exists(averageRateObservationSchedule)] The values of observedRates/observationDate should match the calculated schedule dates derived from parameters defined within the averageRateObservationSchedule element and the business day calendar implied by fixingTime/businessCenter. ” The rule must define: “match”, “calculated schedule date”, the derivation process … Continued
The invalid sample invalid-fx-10-01.xml does not exercise rule fx-10 because the guard on the rule only applying to periods in days rules out this sample. The guard is added in issue #813. 2001-11-01 2001-11-30 4 M NONE The sample needs to be changed to exercise the rule. The same problem also occurs with invalid-fx-10-02.xml