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

XML Transformation Issues with BT-127-notice and BT-728-Procedure Fields After SDK Version 1.12 Update #1041

Open
skyazid opened this issue Oct 12, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
notice-types Related to the notice type definitions (/notice-types).

Comments

@skyazid
Copy link

skyazid commented Oct 12, 2024

Hello,

Since the update to version 1.12, I have been experiencing difficulties with the XML transformation of the BT-127-notice and BT-728-Procedure fields.

Context

After analyzing this commit: 315a03a, I noticed two changes that seem to prevent the correct generation of XML files.

Identified Issues

  1. BT-127-notice:

    A nodeId "ND-ProcedureProcurementScope" was added to the "GR-Procedure-Description" level.
    If I remove this nodeId (as in SDK version 1.11), the XML generation works correctly.

  2. BT-728-Procedure:

    "GR-Procedure-PlaceOfPerformance" underwent a nodeId change. Previously, it was "ND-ProcedurePlacePerformanceAdditionalInformation," but now it has been replaced by "ND-ProcedurePlacePerformance."
    This change seems inconsistent to me because, according to the fields.json file, BT-728-Procedure has a parentNodeID = "ND-ProcedurePlacePerformanceAdditionalInformation."

I have noticed these inconsistencies across all subTypes:

{
  1=[BT-728-Procedure],
  2=[BT-728-Procedure],
  3=[BT-728-Procedure],
  4=[BT-728-Procedure, BT-127-notice],
  5=[BT-728-Procedure, BT-127-notice],
  6=[BT-728-Procedure, BT-127-notice],
  7=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, BT-127-notice, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  8=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, BT-127-notice, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  9=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, BT-127-notice, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  10=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  11=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  12=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  13=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  14=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  15=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  16=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  17=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  18=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  19=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  20=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  21=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  22=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  23=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  24=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-EUFunds, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  25=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  26=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  27=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  28=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  29=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  30=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  31=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  32=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  33=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  34=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  35=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  36=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  37=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  38=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  39=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance], 
  40=[BT-728-Procedure, GR-Lot-PlaceOfPerformance],
  .....
}

Code Used

I am using the XML generation code from the following branch:
https://github.com/OP-TED/eforms-notice-editor/tree/feature/TEDEFO-2456-use-of-fields-attribute-information

Could you please clarify these changes and explain how to ensure the correct XML generation for these fields?

Thank you in advance for your help.

@rouschr @bertrand-lorentz

@YvesJo
Copy link
Contributor

YvesJo commented Oct 14, 2024

Hi,
The group association shouldn't have changed and it should remain associated to ND-ProcedurePlacePerformanceAdditionalInformation,.
We will fix this in a next release
KR

@YvesJo YvesJo added the notice-types Related to the notice type definitions (/notice-types). label Oct 14, 2024
@skyazid
Copy link
Author

skyazid commented Oct 14, 2024

Hi @YvesJo,

Thank you for the clarification regarding the BT-728-Procedure.

However, I would also like some clarification on the BT-127-notice. As mentioned above, adding the nodeId "ND-ProcedureProcurementScope" to "GR-Procedure-Description" prevents the XML from being generated correctly. If I remove this nodeId (as was the case in SDK version 1.11), the XML generation works correctly. Could you clarify whether this is a bug as well?

Additionally, could you provide an estimated release date for the fix? Will it be addressed in a 1.12.1 update?

Thanks again for your help.

@encampaen
Copy link

encampaen commented Oct 25, 2024

Hello, BT-127-Notice will be assigned to a separate display group within the procedure section for the affected subtypes in a future release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
notice-types Related to the notice type definitions (/notice-types).
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants