search

ETPartners / b2mmlv7beta

b2mmlv7beta for review
2 stars 3 forks source link

Add "OperationsRecordSpecificationID" and "OperationsRecordEntry" elements to "OperationsRecordTemplateType" in Common.xsd to align with updated 950002 Operations Record Model #70

Open CharlieG021163 opened 5 years ago

CharlieG021163 commented 5 years ago

https://github.com/MESAInternational/B2MML-BatchML/issues/53

Add "OperationsRecordSpecificationID" and "OperationsRecordEntry" elements to "OperationsRecordTemplateType" in Common.xsd to align with updated 950002 Operations Record Model

Solution "OperationsRecordTemplateType"
ADD element name="OperationsRecordEntry" type="OperationsRecordEntryTemplateType" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> ADD element name="OperationsRecordSpecID"

Support Documents ISA-950002 JWG5 CDV01 version (2019 12) Clause 5.10.3 Operations record template, Table 120 – Operations record template relationship roles

Impacted Types B2MML- Common.xsd, complexType name="OperationsRecordTemplateType"

racheliurui commented 5 years ago

Agree

gerardmoloneyetpartners commented 4 years ago

Dennis has not accepted yet, but offered alternative Solution The relationship is a composite, so instead of adding an ID, I added the following element under the OperationsRecordTemplateType: <xsd:element name="RecordEntry' type="OperationsRecordEntryTemplateType" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>

Also found that the OperationsEvent/OperationsEventRecord was the wrong type. It was OperationsRecordEntryTemplateType, and should have been OperationsRecordTemplateType.

CharlieG021163 commented 4 years ago

Resubmit to MESA as reply and fixes per Dennis's comments

  1. Agree with Dennis's fix to replace OperationsRecordEntryTemplateID BUT with <xsd:element name="OperationsRecordEntry' type="OperationsRecordEntryTemplateType" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>.
  2. Dennis 2nd comment: "Also found that the OperationsEvent/OperationsEventRecord was the wrong type. It was OperationsRecordEntryTemplateType, and should have been OperationsRecordTemplateType." His fix was already corrected in issue #67 as it was an original B2MML mistake.
Dennis-Brandl commented 4 years ago

I agree with the change.

gerardmoloneyetpartners commented 4 years ago

issue is closed in MESA github, but I am moving this to 'Final Review' milestone as the changes are a small bit different to the proposal. Will review the fix applied by MESA once I have someone to assist me looking at and understanding the variance in the fix.