Conflicting SDK fields.json / schematron rules according to BT-118

[tompeeszter]

We faced the following problem while creating a contract modification notice (eForm 38, 39) which contains framework agreement.

If you fill in field BT-118-NoticeResult , you will receive the following error message:

• eForm 38: <assert id="BR-BT-00118-0047" role="ERROR" diagnostics="BT-118-NoticeResult" test="count(efbc:OverallMaximumFrameworkContractsAmount) = 0 or not(not(efac:LotResult/cbc:TenderResultCode[../efac:TenderLot/cbc:ID/normalize-space(text()) = ../../../../../../../cac:ProcurementProjectLot[cbc:ID/@schemeName='Lot']/cbc:ID[../cac:TenderingProcess/cac:ContractingSystem[cbc:ContractingSystemTypeCode/@listName='framework-agreement']/cbc:ContractingSystemTypeCode/normalize-space(text()) = ('fa-mix','fa-w-rc','fa-wo-rc')]/normalize-space(text())]/normalize-space(text()) = 'selec-w') or (not(efac:LotResult/efac:FrameworkAgreementValues/cbc:MaximumValueAmount)))">rule|text|BR-BT-00118-0047</assert>

• eForm 39: <assert id="BR-BT-00118-0048" role="ERROR" diagnostics="BT-118-NoticeResult" test="count(efbc:OverallMaximumFrameworkContractsAmount) = 0 or not(not(efac:LotResult/cbc:TenderResultCode[../efac:TenderLot/cbc:ID/normalize-space(text()) = ../../../../../../../cac:ProcurementProjectLot[cbc:ID/@schemeName='Lot']/cbc:ID[../cac:TenderingProcess/cac:ContractingSystem[cbc:ContractingSystemTypeCode/@listName='framework-agreement']/cbc:ContractingSystemTypeCode/normalize-space(text()) = ('fa-mix','fa-w-rc','fa-wo-rc')]/normalize-space(text())]/normalize-space(text()) = 'selec-w') or (not(efac:LotResult/efac:FrameworkAgreementValues/cbc:MaximumValueAmount)))">rule|text|BR-BT-00118-0048</assert>

One of the conditions of the rule is that field BT-118-NoticeResult can only be specified if BT-142-LotResult='selec-w'. On the othet hand, BT-142-LotResult is forbidden in both notices.

"id" : "BT-142-LotResult", "forbidden" : { "value" : false, "severity" : "ERROR", "constraints" : [ { "noticeTypes" : [ "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16", "17", "18", "19", "20", "21", "22", "23", "24", "25", "26", "27", "28", "38", "39", "40", "CEI", "E1", "E2", "E3", "E6", "T01", "X01", "X02" ], "value" : true, "severity" : "ERROR"

We use SDK 1.13.0.

Could you please invetigate this issue?

Thanks in advance!

[YvesJo]

Thanks for reporting this. I'll look into it. KR

[YvesJo]

No more dependence on BT-142 for contract modification since a contract implicitly exists