Closed nils-work closed 1 year ago
This change has been staged for review - https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards-staging/compare/release/1.26.0...maintenance/595
This issue was discussed in today's Maintenance Iteration call.
It was suggested that the proposal to change the NA
values to the Should contain...
statements should be treated as a breaking change, and, being relatively minor and not urgent, it could be incorporated with future changes to the Get Product Detail endpoint, possibly resulting from Decision Proposal 306 - Updates to Banking Product and Account Detail.
It was also suggested that the Optional. Should contain...
statement could be clearer if changed to May contain...
To clarify the wording in the Use of additionalValue Field values for PENSION_RECIPIENT
and STUDENT
in Product Eligibility Types and Product Discount Eligibility Types.
This change will be incorporated in the next version of the affected endpoints, expected to be in association with DP306.
Value | Use of additionalValue Field |
---|---|
PENSION_RECIPIENT | Optional. If present, MUST contain a description of which pensions qualify |
STUDENT | Optional. If present, MUST contain a description of who qualifies as a student, e.g. do apprentices qualify? |
NA
in Product Eligibility Types)
Description
There appears to be an unintentional misalignment in the 'Use of additionalValue Field' for the
PENSION_RECIPIENT
andSTUDENT
values in these sections -Product Eligibility Types
PENSION_RECIPIENT
is stated asNA
STUDENT
is stated asNA
Product Discount Eligibility Types
PENSION_RECIPIENT
is stated asOptional. Should contain a description of which pensions qualify
STUDENT
is stated asOptional. Should contain a description of who qualifies as a student, e.g. do apprentices qualify?
Area Affected
Change Proposed
Update the values in Product Eligibility Types to match the values defined in Product Discount Eligibility Types.
DSB Proposed Solution
The current DSB proposal for this issue is in this comment.