Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feedback on "missing" fields: BT-781-Lot (Duration Additional Information) #12

Open
csnyulas opened this issue May 19, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
question Further information is requested for implementation

Comments

@csnyulas
Copy link
Contributor

OP provided some additional feedback in the Conceptual Mapping of CN mappings Part 4 under the heading "See comments below on missing fields."

As a general response, fields/nodes that have been mapped in different modules (e.g. ND-Lot or BT-137-Lot in module 2, delivered in part 2), have not been repeated in other modules (e.g. in module/part 4), even if they might provide context to fields in this later module.

Regarding the request for mapping the field BT-781-Lot (Duration Additional Information) field, this field was not listed in any of the eForms subtypes (10-24), and in any of the eForms SDK versions, that we mapped. Moreover, the fields.json specifies this field as "forbidden" in all eForms subtypes: https://github.com/OP-TED/eForms-SDK/blob/967d5f228881b0c6da6eda9b67e9a1df3e985c2a/fields/fields.json#L31879

  {
    "id" : "BT-781-Lot",
    "parentNodeId" : "ND-LotDuration",
    "name" : "Duration Additional Information",
    "btId" : "BT-781",
    "xpathAbsolute" : "/*/cac:ProcurementProjectLot[cbc:ID/@schemeName='Lot']/cac:ProcurementProject/cac:PlannedPeriod/cbc:Description",
    "xpathRelative" : "cbc:Description",
    "xsdSequenceOrder" : [ { "cbc:Description" : 8 } ],
    "type" : "text-multilingual",
    "attributes" : [ "BT-781-Lot-Language" ],
    "legalType" : "TEXT",
    "repeatable" : {
      "value" : false,
      "severity" : "ERROR"
    },
    "forbidden" : {
      "value" : false,
      "severity" : "ERROR",
      "constraints" : [ {
        "noticeTypes" : [ "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16", "17", "18", "19", "20", "21", "22", "23", "24", "25", "26", "27", "28", "29", "30", "31", "32", "33", "34", "35", "36", "37", "38", "39", "40", "CEI", "T01", "T02", "X01", "X02" ],
        "value" : true,
        "severity" : "ERROR"
      } ]
    }
  }

Since this field is not listed in the different eForms subtypes that we mapped, our algorithm that collected the nodes/fields to be mapped did not find this field, and since this is a forbidden field in all eForms subtypes, we assume it not necessary to map it, and it is OK that we haven't mapped it. Please confirm.

@csnyulas csnyulas added the question Further information is requested for implementation label May 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested for implementation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants