Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Participating Org @type description incorrect #455

Open
amy-silcock opened this issue Oct 23, 2019 · 7 comments
Open

Participating Org @type description incorrect #455

amy-silcock opened this issue Oct 23, 2019 · 7 comments
Labels
standard management An issue that involves changing a core part of the IATI Standard

Comments

@amy-silcock
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the bug
Since v2, the @type description within <participating-org> has been the same as that within <reporting-org>. This is: 'The type of organisation issuing the report.'

Organisations listed as participating orgs are often not be the reporting org.

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Go to 'http://reference.iatistandard.org/203/activity-standard/iati-activities/iati-activity/participating-org/'
  2. Compare to 'http://reference.iatistandard.org/archived/105/activity-standard/iati-activities/iati-activity/participating-org/'
  3. Scroll down to '@type'
  4. See error

Expected behavior
I suggest the wording should be changed to: The type of organisation being described.

Additional context
This is a minor bug and can wait until a larger fix/upgrade is due to happen.

@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor

+1, good spot.

This bug was introduced as part of the very large set of changes proposed here.

(This spreadsheet is referenced there, and it includes the typo. I guess it was just a copy and paste error.)

In general, rolling lots and lots of changes together like this can result in bugs being introduced into the standard, because it’s very difficult to spot bugs in a very very large set of changes. (It’s exactly the reason why version control systems like git split changes into meaningful commits).

For that reason, I’m in favour of fixing small bugs like this in a piecemeal way. Rolling this into a larger fix increases the likelihood that something else could be missed.

@samuele-mattiuzzo
Copy link
Contributor

my thoughts exactly @andylolz we'll have to discuss this internally a bit more before proceeding

@akmiller01
Copy link
Contributor

I think this is actually an issue in the Schema text: https://github.com/IATI/IATI-Schemas/blob/version-2.03/iati-activities-schema.xsd#L273

Moving this issue there.

@akmiller01 akmiller01 transferred this issue from IATI/IATI-Standard-SSOT Oct 21, 2022
@akmiller01 akmiller01 added standard management An issue that involves changing a core part of the IATI Standard and removed bug labels Oct 26, 2022
@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor

andylolz commented Nov 3, 2022

Why has the bug label been removed? I’m pretty sure (as Amy and Samuele agreed) this is a bug.

@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor

andylolz commented Nov 3, 2022

I think this is actually an issue in the Schema text: https://github.com/IATI/IATI-Schemas/blob/version-2.03/iati-activities-schema.xsd#L273

Yes – I think that’s exactly right.

If you use git blame to follow the breadcrumbs back, you’ll find this commit and this issue, linking to the spreadsheet containing the error that was mentioned above.

@akmiller01
Copy link
Contributor

I've been trying to standardize the issue labels between our SSOT repository issues over the last couple of weeks. I've used "bug" to indicate a purely technical issue that can be immediately addressed, and "enhancement" to indicate a purely technical new suggested feature. For anything I thought might require some community consultation or perhaps a standard upgrade, I marked it as "standard management."

Given fixing this bug would involve editing the iati-activities-schema.xsd, I thought it wouldn't make sense to make the change without first seeking input. There are also quite a few issues in this repository that involve small typos in the schema, so it might make sense to handle them all together.

I would be interested in your input on what level of community consultation would be appropriate for these type of typo issues.

@andylolz
Copy link
Contributor

andylolz commented Nov 3, 2022

I've used "bug" to indicate a purely technical issue that can be immediately addressed, and "enhancement" to indicate a purely technical new suggested feature. For anything I thought might require some community consultation or perhaps a standard upgrade, I marked it as "standard management."

Okay I see. Thanks for explaining – that system sounds good.

I think the previous bug label was used in the context of the upgrade process, which says backwards-compatible bug fixes can happen as part of a patch upgrade to the standard. In the past I think these have happened without community consultation, but I may be misremembering.

Personally I think this instance could probably be resolved without community consultation, but that’s of course a question for your team. Just to add one further amendment, I’d also consider removing “See IATI codelist for values” which is used inconsistently at present.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
standard management An issue that involves changing a core part of the IATI Standard
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants