Ben Page Product & Observable Model - Removal of Choice Type Extension#4677
Conversation
Product & Observable Model - Removal of Choice Type ExtensionBackground As part of the DSL 10.0.0 CDM upgrade, legacy syntax validation warnings need to promoted to errors What is being released? Changing the following extensions to attributes under the types:
And resolving any code breaks where the attribute now needs to be added Review Directions Changes can be reviewed in PR: #4677 Note This comment was generated via Rosetta. |
✅ Deploy Preview for finos-cdm ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
|
What is being released? Cardinality problems resolved Note This comment was generated via Rosetta. |
regnosys-prod-user
added
Rosetta
| Basket is absent | ||
| observable switch | ||
| Basket then is absent, | ||
| default empty |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this condition works. When you do a switch statement, it says when you reach basket then it must be absent, but it can't reach basket if it is absent...its a bit confusing. Can you follow up with Simon? I'm not %100 sure myself
I think this may be clearer:
observable switch
Basket then False,
default True
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will revert this and cover in the seperate PR
|
Diffs are explainable, as all values are still populated the same, what is happening is now every basket constituent now has an observable attribute underneath it, so is showing as newly populated fields, but because it is an extension that has been removed, it is not showing that fields are missing Basket fields Output |
|
What is being released? Addressed remaining comments Note This comment was generated via Rosetta. |
regnosys-prod-user
added
Rosetta
Oscar-Twomey
left a comment
Oscar-Twomey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approving. @BENP-REGNOSYS please clarify whether the qualification functions will be address in a separate PR?
|
Also, @BENP-REGNOSYS please update the release notes - formatting etc. |
|
Changes look good. There are several references to a further PR to resolve some of the outstanding requirements (jn relation to the Path Operator). Do we have an Issue already created to cover these changes? If so it would be good to reference it here so we can track everything together. |
|
Thanks @chrisisla, yes the warnings will be addressed in #4637 once DSL 10 has been implemented |
|
Superseded by #4771 |
5 participants
No description provided.