The CD preconditions are missing a context. For example the “SingleName” precondition. The standard says “The following preconditions are always to be executed relative to the root of the FpML document being validated. The context of the rule is NOT carried through to the precondition.”, but the precondition has a path that doesn’t exist inside … Continued
“Context: TradeSide (complex type) shared-16 (Mandatory) For party/@href anywhere within the tradeSide element, href shall match the @id attribute of a FpML/party element.” “FpML/part” is not within the given context. Either the context or the path needs changing.
Rules shared-11 states: “Context: Trade (complex type) shared-11 (Mandatory) If businessDateRange exists within any descendant element of the trade, then businessCentersReference/@href, if present, must match some businessCenters/@id within the same trade.” The problem with this is that “businessCentersReference/@href” and “businessCenters/@id” are not in the context of “//element(*, Trade)”, they are deeper descendants. I rewrote the … Continued
The example document valid-shared-7-01.xml does not test rule shared-7. The rule is: Context: BermudaExercise (complex type) shared-7 (Mandatory) earliestExerciseTime < latestExerciseTime, if latestExerciseTime exists. Yet the example does not contain a latestExerciseTime.
shared-6 is missing the full path to the time values. Currently the rule is: Context: AmericanExercise (complex type) shared-6 (Mandatory) earliestExerciseTime < latestExerciseTime, if latestExerciseTime exists. It should be: (for $americanExercise as element(*, AmericanExercise) in //element(*, AmericanExercise)[latestExerciseTime] return ) The difference is the “/hourMinutetime” on each path.
The Validation examples should state where they are invalid. For example invalid-shared-4-01.xml triggers rule triggers shared-4 twice. Once it is valid and once it is invalid, but it does not state where. Context: RelativeDateOffset (complex type) shared-4 (Mandatory) If the dayType is Business then the businessDayConvention should be NONE.
Let’s look at the following scenario: A Novation takes place between three parties (transferee, transferor, and remaining party) and the custodian of the remaining party needs to receive the information about the remaining contract. This may include the updated version of the contract and the new version of the contract. This is not possible with … Continued
Shared rules 2 and 3 are missing.
———————————————————————- mgratacos – 2007-08-23 17:48 ———————————————————————- The only html documents in the source directory of the repository were the fragments documents (part of the validation documentation). The Validation Working Group decided not to mantain these files anymore and link directly to the appropriate test cases (xml files).
Rule eqd-23 states: Context: EquityDerivativeBase (complex type) eqd-23 (Mandatory) equityEffectiveDate >= ../../tradeHeader/tradeDate Example valid-eqd-01.xml breaks this rule because it does not have an equityEffectiveDate. The field equityEffectiveDate inside the complexType EquityOption is optional. Therefore rule eqd-23 does not make sense when equityEffectiveDate is not present.