COLIN API: need to sync new TED and historical TINGs

[riyazuddinsyed]

~DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS TICKET AT THIS TIME. AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ISSUE, WE ARE HOPING THAT BUSINESS SEARCH WILL RETURN RESULTS FROM LEAR, BUT THAT NEEDS MORE HIGH-LEVEL DISCUSSION.~ Per recent business decision, we want to sync all businesses back to COLIN (for example, so they can get a BN).

(Yes to syncing historical TINGs, but no to syncing expro that are made historical by continuation in filings.)

• [x] Amalgamation application filing mapping

CPROD	LEAR	desc
AMALR	amalgamationApplication (regular)	Amalgamation Application (Regular)
AMLRU	amalgamationApplication (regular)	Amalgamation Application (Regular) for a BC Unlimited Liability Company
AMALH	amalgamationApplication (horizontal)	Amalgamation Application Short Form (Horizontal)
AMLHU	amalgamationApplication (horizontal)	Amalgamation Application Short Form (Horizontal) for a BC Unlimited Liability Company
AMALV	amalgamationApplication (vertical)	Amalgamation Application Short Form (Vertical)
AMLVU	amalgamationApplication (vertical )	Amalgamation Application Short Form (Vertical) for a BC Unlimited Liability Company

• [x] Reuse sync for:

  • [ ] Parties
  • [ ] Offices
  • [ ] Name request
  • [ ] Name translations
  • [ ] Share structure

• [x] Work with David Roberts to identify what to update with amalgamating businesses and how to dissolve them

Note: Putbackon should be handled in a separate ticket

[NaveenHebbale]

@Mihai-QuickSilverDev Should we consider this ticket has bug or not. Since we It is COLIN SYNC

[severinbeauvais]

I updated the title.

[severinbeauvais]

@vysakh-menon-aot Any idea how complex/time-consuming this ticket might be?

[vysakh-menon-aot]

need to discuss this with David Roberts to see what tables we need to update for amalgamating business

[severinbeauvais]

Can you start that conversation, please? If that's a ton of work, let's chat with @OlgaPotiagalova about this.

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

**All, since there are no plans in place to release amalgamations to Prod before the COLIN Phase I go-live, the following considerations need to be taken into account:

1. All the companies need to be treated as they ALL are in LEAR.
2. No synching is required from LEAR to COLIN for amalgamations.
   • The exception from this point is when a TING is an Axxxxxxx company in COLIN.
   • In this case, the following need to be applied to the Axxxxxxx company in COLIN:
   • Make the company Historical.
   • Add the TING notation - historical by amalgamation on this date, into this TED number** @OlgaPotiagalova @severinbeauvais @vysakh-menon-aot @NaveenHebbale

[severinbeauvais]

Since we already sync up new IAs, I'm guessing it might be as little as 1 line of code to sync up new amalgamations (TEDs only).

For the sake of local development and testing, would it be worth just doing that?

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

@severinbeauvais Your point would only apply only if the TED would be a BEN, and only before the COLIN go-live. And even then we barely had any, (none so far), so probably the effort is not justified.

[severinbeauvais]

What we have is a lot of new TEDs in Dev (and Test) that Business Search doesn't find, and we can no longer use the TINGs because they're historical.

This means we can't re-use a lot of the test businesses we have been nurturing over the years and we need to create a lot of new test businesses (which don't have years of ledger items).

Cc: @yuisotozaki

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

I have sent a separate email on this topic, as it pertains to test data and searching in Dev and Test. We need to have that discussion sooner than later. @OlgaPotiagalova

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

The following tenets need to be employed for Dev and Test:

• [ ] What happens in BCROS stays in BCROS.
• [ ] The filings based business searches need to work with the reunion of COLIN and LEAR.
• [ ] The searches will be switches solely to LEAR on COLIN Phase 1 go-live.

[severinbeauvais]

@OlgaPotiagalova What is the priority of this ticket? (Our team has a lot of # 1 priorities atm and only one developer with sufficient experience to work on this.)

[OlgaPotiagalova]

@severinbeauvais it is in our PI 21 plan. Is current estimate of 8 points still accurate or we need to review and re-estimate?

[OlgaPotiagalova]

Please add comments from backlog refinement session. Thank you.

[severinbeauvais]

Olga, I think we need to discuss this ticket at the next refinement session. I am unclear how much work this ticket is.

[severinbeauvais]

• [ ] go back and test BN email that was implemented in #21515

[vysakh-menon-aot]

Test Note:

• Pre-requisite: The amalgamating business (TING) should be present in COLIN for sync to work.

[NaveenHebbale]

@riyazuddinsyed, Amalgamation TED companies are Triggering messages for MRAs not for BN. @OlgaPotiagalova Finds from Darci - [Friday 2:54 p.m.] Denis, Darci CITZ:EX Okay there were MRAS messages for all of them, and those messages look good. 1144547, 1144548 and 1144549 are all showing as Benefit companies, but they aren't being flagged as frozen in COLIN like they should. They also did not create a BN message in BN Manager. 1144550 and 1144551 are both showing as BC companies, again MRAS message looks good, and everything looks good in COLIN, and the BN messages for the amalgamations are showing in BN Manager.

Below Company not have BN number [Friday 2:25 p.m.] Riyazzudin, Syed CITZ:EX BC1144547

[Friday 2:26 p.m.] Riyazzudin, Syed CITZ:EX BC1144548

[Friday 2:26 p.m.] Riyazzudin, Syed CITZ:EX BC1144549

[Friday 2:26 p.m.] Riyazzudin, Syed CITZ:EX BC1144550

[Friday 2:26 p.m.] Riyazzudin, Syed CITZ:EX BC1144551 BC1144548

[vikas-gov]

@vysakh-menon-aot will review the scenario, connect with DR from DBA team. The agreement is to close this ticket and create a new one for the scenario

[NaveenHebbale]

New Ticker created BN issue #22651. This ticket is closed

When an Extra-Provincial company is involved in Regular amalgamation, This COLIN API makes A company historical