Closed jpmckinney closed 7 months ago
Note that option 1 is proposed in https://github.com/open-contracting/standard/issues/1607. This issue can be closed if that issue is closed.
1 also implies 3, the extension would now be adding selectionCriteria
to Lot
and criteria
to tender.selectionCriteria
3 alone would mean that the detailed .criteria
would only be available under Lot
(until 2 was also completed).
tender
should always include at least one lot
. But it now seems to be the case that this limitation will now not be addressed until 1.3 (or maybe even 2.0). If this sort of break down is needed for the award criteria it make sense to have continuity in naming between the award and the selection criteria. But if the recommendation to make everything a lot
even if there tender is not technically split into lots isn't going to come into force until 1.3 or later, then if we do 3 as noted above it means no criteria
available in tender
.Given all that I think it makes sense to do all 3 as 2 PRs, one to 1.2-dev and one to the extension. So
tender.selectionCriteria
in OCDS 1.2 to an object that contains a description
field.tender.selectionCriteria.criteria
to tender.selectionCriteriaBreakdown
in the Selection Criteria extensiontender.selectionCriteria
from the Selection Criteria extension, leaving lot.selectionCriteria
When the merge of Lots extension into OCDS does happen the lots.selectionCriteria
should be revisited to make it consistent with the tender
and award
criteria elements discussed here.
Hmm, if we do your (1) then we don't need to do your (2) or (3).
In mine, I meant to present (1) and (2) as alternatives, where we'd choose only one of them.
But if we do (1) (yours or mine) without doing (3) then there'll be a definition of Tender.selectionCriteria
in both the core ocds 1.2 and the extension, which is not good or have I misunderstood what the error "Exception: unexpectedly overwrites /definitions/Tender/properties/selectionCriteria/title /home/runner/work/ocds_selectionCriteria_extension/ocds_selectionCriteria_extension/release-schema.json" means?
Or in your (1) did you mean to imply that the extension would also be adjusted to remove the definition of Tender.selectionCriteria
and it's .description
leaving just criteria
being added to Tender.selectionCriteria
as defined in the core?
I'll make an exemption to the rule, like I did for submissionTerms, so that the error message won't occur. I can't make an exemption yet, because right now OCDS 1.2 and the extension are inconsistent. Once they are consistent, I'll make the exemption.
ah, cool, in that case I think (1) is the way to go, I'll make a PR for it
OCDS 1.2 adds tender.selectionCriteria as a string field.
This extension has it as an object containing
description
andcriteria
fields. This was needed for the LEFTI section in the EU profile, which is no longer relevant due to eForms.There are some options:
description
field. The extension can then add thecriteria
field.tender.selectionCriteria.criteria
totender.selectionCriteriaBreakdown
, to match the proposal for award criteria in #192selectionCriteria
from the extension, as this is only used in the EU profile, and not in eForms.2 implies 3, so we can start with 3.
The extension's CI is currently failing due to the conflict with OCDS 1.2-dev.