Missing Mandatory Constraint for BT-14-Lot in Notice Type 7

[dnl50]

Hello there,

according to the fields.json, BT-14-Lot ist optional for Notice Type 7. But when no value is selected in BT-14-Lot, schematron rule BR-BT-00615-0119 is violated. When I understand the underlying XPath expression correcty, BT-14-Lot should be mandatory in Notice Type 7.

Best Regards
Daniel

[YvesJo]

Hi,
The context for the rules is the node ND-LotProcurementDocument which may contain BT-14-Lot, BT-15-Lot, BT-615-Lot, BT-707-Lot,
OPT-140-Lot.
BT-14-Lot is the "entry point" for the Procurement Documents, in its absence neither the listed fields, nor the parent node shall exist.
In absence of the parent, the rules wouldn't get fired.
Additionally, the existence of the parent node with the the absence of OPT-140-Lot would lead to a non XSD compliant XML instance, while OPT-140-Lot is only allowed when BT-14-Lot is defined.
The 42 condition on the conditionally mandatory rule for BT-615-Lot in Notice Subtype 7 is in fact useless.
Given these details, BT-14-Lot is Mandatory where Procurement Documents are mandatory and optional where these are optional and its existence and value are driving the existence of all the other Procurement Documents related fields.

[dnl50]

Hi there, thanks for the quick reply. Shouldn't BT-14-Lot always be marked as mandatory for all notice types then? Since ND-LotProcurementDocument is repeatable, one could just delete the ND-LotProcurementDocument node when no procurement documents are required. Or is this a problem since there is no repeatable-mandatory and repeatable-optional distinction in the fields.json?

[YvesJo]

Thanks for the suggestion. Making the field mandatory, would then force the parent node existence while it is optional for some notices. Displaying a mandatory field and keeping the possibility to delete the parent is a nice option and is currently limited to some specific cases with notices initially created from a previous notice (e.g. result notice where decision has been made for some of the lots only, contract modifications …).

[dnl50]

Does this mean that a repeatable is mandatory as long as it contains a unconditionally mandatory BT?

[YvesJo]

Yes, for any Mandatory (without condition, i.e. stage 2 mandatory) field, for the field to exist, all of its ancestors have to exist.