-
BT-150 is forbidden in notice types 36 and 37 but if we don't add it into XML we will get an error: We are developing on version 1.3.2. Is it solved in later versions? Should there be a contract identifier in 36 and 37 or not? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Answered by
YvesJo
Feb 14, 2023
Replies: 1 comment
-
Hi, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Answer selected by
YvesJo
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi,
This issue has been fixed in later versions with the rule context applied at the field level directly so that the check for unicity does not conflicts with the existence requirements and only gets triggered when the field exists.
KR.