Difference between revisions of "DetectedIssue when using multiple payloads"
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (new page) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{INM Workitem}} | {{INM Workitem}} | ||
| + | {{MnM Open Hot Topic}} | ||
==Issue== | ==Issue== | ||
Revision as of 08:08, 12 July 2006
This page documents an INM Workitem, i.e. an issue within scope of the INM Committee that either is still being discussed, or the resolution of which has not yet been included in an INM ballot.
This page documents an Open MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.
Issue
If one sends 1 interaction containing mutiple requests, and some of those are rejected, and others accepted, how does the reciever communicate the reasons for rejecting some of them ?
There's a detectedIssue for the ControlAct, but that's for the entire order, not for parts of it. Do we need detectedIssue classes related to fulfillment objects in the application response ?
Currently we have deferred the entire issue to a future cycle by constraining an order interaction to 1 request object.
Discussion
(Gaby Jewell, Feb 2005) This is an issue today. In the UK, we're receiving a list of appointment slots available for referrals. As we process the list, we may have issues with none, one, many or all of the slots. We process he slots that are valid and return an error for each slot that had an issue. We send one acknowledgement message with a list of errors--could be a long list of errors! No matter what we do, it's wrong (other than "AA" for no slots with issues and "AE" for all slots with issues).
(Rene) That's even less granular than my intention. How doesn one express "I reject slot #3 for reason Y", and "I reject slot #17 for reason Z", and "I accept slot #25, but with the following warning W associated to its acceptance" ? But for sure, just stating that half of them are "acceptable" whereas the other half is not is already problematic.
