This repository houses the interactions, consultations and work management to support the maintenance of baselined components of the Consumer Data Right API Standards and Information Security profile.
41
stars
9
forks
source link
Use of additionalValue field for ADDITIONAL_CARDS #390
The additionalValue property of Product Features is currently specified as a conditionalstring based on featureType.
For the ADDITIONAL_CARDSfeature type, Use of additionalValue Field states -
The maximum number of additional cards. If no maximum then should be set to null
So, if a product has the ADDITIONAL_CARDS feature, the additionalValue property should exist and the value should either be a numeric string or null.
There should be no problem if a maximum number number of cards applies. The value could be set like "5", and basic schema validation tests that check that the additionalValue property exists and contains a numeric string would pass.
The options where there is no maximum number of cards appear to be -
Set to null according to the field description - this would fail because it is not a string and fails basic schema validation.
Set to "null" - it is a string, but it is not numeric and fails detailed schema validation.
Set to "" - it is a string, but it is not numeric and fails detailed schema validation.
Set to a negative number like "-1" - this could be made to pass detailed schema validation, but the value is normally expected to be a positive integer.
Omit the field - this currently fails basic conditional validation (description implies the field should be present), but passes detailed schema validation (because there is no value to test). Other fields (e.g. BILL_PAYMENT, PENSION_RECIPIENT, STUDENT) state that their values are Optional.
It seems the intention may have been to omit the field completely, but this may also contradict the statement about Mandatory/Optional fields -
If the conditional statement is true in a specific request or response the field is considered mandatory.
Changing the conditional statement slightly may make the logic and intent clearer and comparisons across data holders more consistent.
I believe all other instances of additionalValue only require simple string values when present.
Area Affected
Documentation detail in the Use of additionalValue Field for ADDITIONAL_CARDS featureType.
Change Proposed
Consider removing the 'set to null' text and/or specify a different option for when no maximum exists.
e.g.
The maximum number of additional cards, or "-1" if no maximum is defined.
or
Optional. The maximum number of additional cards, where a maximum is defined.
Description
The
additionalValueproperty of Product Features is currently specified as aconditionalstringbased on featureType.For the
ADDITIONAL_CARDSfeature type, Use of additionalValue Field states -The maximum number of additional cards. If no maximum then should be set to nullSo, if a product has the
ADDITIONAL_CARDSfeature, theadditionalValueproperty should exist and the value should either be a numeric string ornull.There should be no problem if a maximum number number of cards applies. The value could be set like
"5", and basic schema validation tests that check that theadditionalValueproperty exists and contains a numeric string would pass.The options where there is no maximum number of cards appear to be -
nullaccording to the field description - this would fail because it is not a string and fails basic schema validation."null"- it is a string, but it is not numeric and fails detailed schema validation.""- it is a string, but it is not numeric and fails detailed schema validation."-1"- this could be made to pass detailed schema validation, but the value is normally expected to be a positive integer.Optional.It seems the intention may have been to omit the field completely, but this may also contradict the statement about Mandatory/Optional fields -
If the conditional statement is true in a specific request or response the field is considered mandatory.Changing the conditional statement slightly may make the logic and intent clearer and comparisons across data holders more consistent. I believe all other instances of
additionalValueonly require simple string values when present.Area Affected
Documentation detail in the Use of additionalValue Field for
ADDITIONAL_CARDSfeatureType.Change Proposed
Consider removing the 'set to null' text and/or specify a different option for when no maximum exists. e.g.
The maximum number of additional cards, or "-1" if no maximum is defined.orOptional. The maximum number of additional cards, where a maximum is defined.