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

v2.03 bug: transaction/aid-type and default-aid-type mappings should include a @vocabulary condition #169

Closed
andylolz opened this issue Sep 18, 2018 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor

Originally raised on IATI discuss, so credit to @Eimis for spotting it 👏


In the transaction/aid-type/@code v2.03 docs, it currently says:

This value must be on the AidType codelist.

That’s not true, though. Since v2.03, the value is only required to be on the AidType codelist if the relevant aid type vocabulary (1) is used.

To fix this, the v2.03 mapping.xml file should be amended to add a condition to the aid-type and default-aid-type vocabularies, similar to the condition used for sectors.

@amy-silcock
Copy link
Contributor

@PetyaKangalova please could you have a look through these tomorrow before we merge? And we'll see if rebuilding the iati-activities-schema.xsd pulls through the 2.03 added guidance onto the site :)

@amy-silcock
Copy link
Contributor

This is now fixed and on the website. Good work all.

http://reference.iatistandard.org/203/activity-standard/iati-activities/iati-activity/default-aid-type/

@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor Author

andylolz commented Sep 25, 2018

This is now fixed and on the website.

Looks wrong on the website still. I’m expecting this:

This value must be on the AidType codelist.

…to instead say:

This value must be on the AidType codelist, if the relevant vocabulary is used.

When it says that, then it’s clear that the fix for this is working.

The IATI-Codelist submodule on IATI-Standard-SSOT was last updated a month ago, so that’s probably why. [Auto-deploying would save headaches.]

@amy-silcock
Copy link
Contributor

@andylolz have a look now?

@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Perfect! Thanks @amy-silcock.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants