Patrick Johnmeyer
Patrick Johnmeyer
I do second the notion of using an object for the input per my thumbs-up above. I will suggest, though, that the object should continue to use a defined subset...
Question for the TWG: Does improving schema rules, without REQUIRING a new field or RENAMING a field, count as a breaking change? It would cause validation to pass on version...
For the purposes of OCX v 1.0, the note in row 25 of the Stakeholder Snapshot sheet says "no". > ** Fully Diluted Shares and % Fully Diluted include (1)...
TWG Notes: Relates to #373, @jacobyavis to take another pass at a proposal to solving both at once.
TWG: Will give folks until the next meeting to review.
@JSv4 @jacobyavis can one of you please either pick this up for me or merge it as is?
> Looks good to me, just missing running the `docs:generate` script to update the corresponding markdown files @mrosendin As @lavens suggested, your PR should have re-generated documentation but did not....
In order to make this change in a non-breaking way, we would change the `Stakeholder` model to allow one field or the other: 1. The existing field, `current_relationship` **OR** 2....
Unassigning myself for now; I may return to this but I don't want to be perceived as a blocker.
Per TWG: @jacobyavis to update so that documents reference: 1. An array of OCF objects, 2. Polymorphically by ID+object type