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

CII: BR-CL-10 and BR-CL-26 use conflicting selectors #307

Closed
phax opened this issue Mar 18, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

CII: BR-CL-10 and BR-CL-26 use conflicting selectors #307

phax opened this issue Mar 18, 2022 · 3 comments
Milestone

Comments

@phax
Copy link
Collaborator

phax commented Mar 18, 2022

Hi @oriol ,

In CII, BR-CL-10 uses:

  <rule context="//ram:GlobalID[@schemeID][not(ancestor::ram:SpecifiedTradeProduct)]" flag="fatal">

and the selector and BR-CL-26 uses:

  <rule context="ram:ApplicableHeaderTradeDelivery/ram:ShipToTradeParty/ram:GlobalID[@schemeID]" flag="fatal">

They conflict for the ram:ShipToTradeParty/ram:GlobalID element.

We think the resolution to this can be to change BR-CL-10 to

//ram:GlobalID[@schemeID][not(ancestor::ram:SpecifiedTradeProduct) and not(ancestor::ram:ShipToTradeParty)]
@oriol oriol added this to the 1.3.8 milestone Mar 20, 2022
@oriol
Copy link
Collaborator

oriol commented Mar 28, 2022

Done as suggested, but shouldn't it be better to just remove BR-CL-26?

@phax
Copy link
Collaborator Author

phax commented Mar 28, 2022

Yes, alternatively a removal of BR-CL-26 would also work I assume

@oriol
Copy link
Collaborator

oriol commented Mar 28, 2022

Will keep it as is, with the two rules and the new context

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants