FpML Issues Tracker

690: ird-58 is missing an else clause

May 13, 2008

closed

Minor

Always

Validation Rules

Admin

None

Summary

ird-58 is missing an else clause as currently expressed. The problem is that there is no result if the "if" clause isn't satisfied.

The rule today: " Context: CalculationPeriodDates ird-58 (Mandatory) Preconditions: isParametric If rollConvention is a day of the week ( MON, TUE, WED, THU, FRI, SAT or SUN) then the period must be W. "

An alternative corrected expression is below. This has the problem the rule fires even though it isn't really in context: " Context: CalculationPeriodDates ird-58 (Mandatory) Preconditions: isParametric If rollConvention is a day of the week ( MON, TUE, WED, THU, FRI, SAT or SUN) then the period must be W, else true(). "

The corrected rule, which is the proposed solution: " Context: CalculationPeriodDates (complex type)[not (rollConvention = ("NONE", "SFE", "MON", "TUE", "WED", "THU", "FRI", "SAT", SUN"))] ird-58 (Mandatory) Preconditions: isParametric The period must be W. "

Notes:

  • matthewdr

    06/03/08 1:56 pm


    Context: CalculationPeriodDates (complex type)[not (rollConvention = (“NONE”, “SFE”, “MON”, “TUE”, “WED”, “THU”, “FRI”, “SAT”, SUN”))]
    ird-58 (Mandatory)
    Preconditions: isParametric
    period = “W”.

  • matthewdr

    06/03/08 1:57 pm

    Agreed at VWG. ISDA to implement in the correct form.

  • lyteck

    07/07/08 2:49 pm

    fixed as proposed (using new specs format)

  • h_mcallister

    07/07/08 4:49 pm

    The new expression inverts the original sense of the rule.

    Formerly we had:
    If rollConvention is a day-of-the-week, then the period must be W.

    Now we have:
    If rollConvention is none of {NONE, SFE, days-of-the-week}, then the period must be W.

    (1) This is not equivalent to the original (perfectly intuitive) expression of the rule.

    (2) The inclusion of NONE & SFE in the predicate seems to be arbitrary; what is the rationale?

    (3) rollConvention and period are direct children of CalculationPeriodFrequency – shouldn’t the context of the rule be CalculationPeriod*Frequency*, rather than CalculationPeriod*Dates*?

  • lyteck

    07/09/08 8:05 pm

    – changed context from CalculationPeriodDates to CalculationPeriodFrequency (3)
    – expressed condition in English rather than full Xpath
    – corrected the “inversion” of the original sense (removed negation on the condition)

  • mgratacos

    07/09/08 10:06 pm

    If the rollConvention is TBILL, shouldn’t the period be W too?

  • lyteck

    12/10/08 7:48 pm

    ird-58 resolved with issue 838.

    last question (re: TBILL) should be addressed in new issue, if needed.

  • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.