I am working through all the example valid and invalid test documents. I have noticed that where a rule has been deprecated, then the valid/invalid test case documents have not be removed from the repository. I propose that when a rule is deprecated that it’s appropriated (necessary) to also remove the example test case documents … Continued
Rule ird-7: ” Preconditions: isParametric calculationPeriodAmount/calculation/compoundingMethod exists if and only if the frequencies in paymentDates/paymentFrequency and calculationPeriodDates/calculationPeriodFrequency are different. See also: frequency equivalence. ” There could be two possible interpretations: if frequencies in paymentDates/paymentFrequency and calculationPeriodDates/calculationPeriodFrequency are different, then calculationPeriodAmount/calculation/compoundingMethod MUST be present OR if frequencies in paymentDates/paymentFrequency and calculationPeriodDates/calculationPeriodFrequency are different, then calculationPeriodAmount/calculation/compoundingMethod COULD … Continued
The invalid test case for ird-32 (invalid-ird-38-00.xml) does not validate against the schema details: Validation error on line 135 column 43 of invalid-ird-38-00.xml: XTTE1510: The content of element is incomplete. Expected one of: finalStub, initialStub
The invalid test case for ird-32 (invalid-ird-32-00.xml) does not validate against the schema details: Validation error on line 84 column 52 of invalid-ird-32-00.xml: XTTE1510: In content of element : The content model does not allow element to appear here.
The current definition of “Backwards Compatability” is loosely defined. For the fpmlVersion attribute to work backwards compatability will need to be tightened up. 5.5 Backwards Compatibility Where possible, every attempt should be made to keep changes to the FpML schema as backwards compatible as possible. In general, the loosening of restriction, or the adding of … Continued
Looking at the proposed rule shared-18 it is apparent that the structure of 1..* parties in a message is very common and could do with refactoring into a type. Some degree of refactoring would make rules such as shared-18 much simpler. “The new rule is: ” shared-18 (Mandatory) Context: AcceptQuote (complex type), AllocationAmended (complex type), … Continued
A rule is needed to enforce disjoint dividend periods. This would prevent dividendPeriods overlapping. The new rule is: ” eqd-30 (Mandatory) Context: DividendAdjustment(complex type) Rule: Each dividendPeriod must have a disjoint unadjustedDividendPeriod from every other dividendPeriod. The unadjustedDividend period starts with the unadjustedStartDate and finishes with the unadjustedEndDate. A period is disjoint with another period … Continued
There needs to be a new rule that ensures stepDates are unique to a Step. The new rule is: ” shared-25 (Mandatory) Context: Schedule(complex type) [count(step) ge 2] Rule: step/stepDate must be unique. Comment: Each step happens on a separate date. “
A new rule is needed to ensure routingIds are unique within RoutingIds. The new rule is: ” shared-24 (Mandatory) Context: RoutingIds(complex type) Rule: routingId must be unique. The equivalence test is to compare the value of routingId and (if it exists) routingId/@routingIdCodeScheme. Comment: Each routingId is unique within a set of routing Ids. “
A new validation rule is needed to enforce referenceBanks are disjoint. The new rule is: ” shared-23 (Mandatory) Context: CashSettlementReferenceBanks (complex type) Rule: Each referenceBank/referenceBankId must be unique. The equivalence test is to compare the value of referenceBank/referenceBankId and (if it exists) referenceBank/referenceBankId/@referenceBankIdScheme. Also referenceBank/referenceBankName must be unique if it exists. Comment: Each referenceBankId and … Continued