finos / common-domain-model

The CDM is a model for financial products, trades in those products, and the lifecycle events of those trades. It is an open source standard that aligns data, systems and processes and is available as code in multiple languages for easy implementation across technologies.
Other
113 stars 50 forks source link

Lionel Smith-Gordon Phase-1-Asset-Refactor #2997

Open regnosys-prod-user opened 1 week ago

netlify[bot] commented 1 week ago

Deploy Preview for finos-cdm failed. Why did it fail? →

Name Link
Latest commit 605a001715eaa58a43e76415cb7cc11990476715
Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/finos-cdm/deploys/667ee1167f109d0008e2c7e4
JBZ-Fragmos commented 1 week ago

@Oblongs

not sure the suggestion below (recorded in some Minutes) have been taken into account ? please let me know about it

This Enum type should be included in the scope of our discussion

I guess “Asset” concept will imply refactoring here, for instance :

image

JBZ-Fragmos commented 3 days ago

in addition to the above @Oblongs,

change proposal :

image image

rationale :

JBZ-Fragmos commented 3 days ago

another improvement to discuss please @Oblongs about some PriceSchedule and QuantitySchedule in Payout for which [metadata address] is currently missing

Background

Purpose of having [metadata address] for PriceSchedule and QuantitySchedule in Payout, permits to reference the corresponding type with [metada location] in TradeLot.

One main benefit for having such referencing is for updating the related components inside Payout in regards of a LifeCycle Event represented with quantityChange Instruction (or more generally with any Intruction that may be contemplated where PriceSchedule or QuantitySchedule would be used).

In case such reference annotation is missing for a given PriceSchedule or QuantitySchedule component in Payout, there is no other ways to update it than using termsChange Instruction (that being heavy compared to quantityChange for the only purpose of updating a kind of components for which quantityChange is originally designed)

Problem Statement

The [metadata address] annotation is missing for PriceSchedule and QuantitySchedule in some Payout, that is to say the possibility to reference PriceSchedule and QuantitySchedule with [metada location] fromTradeLot is not implemented in consistent/exhaustive** manner in current model e.g. in some case it is present (OK) but in ther cases it is missing (KO=inconsistent)

Example where it is already present (OK = already aligned with target)

Example where it is missing (KO = need to insert the [metadata address] for these items)

Oblongs commented 2 days ago

change proposal :

  • simplifying_ PriceQuantity by removing attributes :
    • SettlementTerms
    • and BuyerSeller

This aligns with the scope of the planned 3rd tranche of changes and is not relevant to this PR.

Oblongs commented 2 days ago

another improvement to discuss please @Oblongs about some PriceSchedule and QuantitySchedule in Payout for which [metadata address] is currently missing

This proposal is also aligned with the third tranche and is not relevant to this PR.