EBL Transportdoctype code swb validation

[palatsangeetha]

No description provided.

[qodo-code-review]

Review Summary by Qodo

Add SWB negotiability validation and test coverage

✨ Enhancement 🧪 Tests

Walkthroughs

Description

• Add validation to prevent SWB transport documents from being negotiable
• Implement custom validator checking isToOrder flag for SWBs
• Register new validation check in static TD checks list
• Add comprehensive test coverage for SWB negotiability validation

Diagram

flowchart LR
  A["SWB Document"] -->|transportDocumentTypeCode check| B["SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE"]
  B -->|isToOrder validation| C["Custom Validator"]
  C -->|true| D["Validation Fails"]
  C -->|false/absent| E["Validation Passes"]
  B -->|registered in| F["STATIC_TD_CHECKS"]
  B -->|registered in| G["allDg checks"]

Loading

File Changes

1. ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java ✨ Enhancement +23/-0

Add SWB negotiability validation check

• Added new static SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE validation check using JsonAttribute.ifThen()
• Implements custom validator that ensures isToOrder is false or absent for SWB documents
• Registered the new check in both allDg() and STATIC_TD_CHECKS lists
• Provides descriptive error message when SWB has isToOrder set to true

ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java

---

2. ebl/src/test/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecksTest.java 🧪 Tests +38/-0

Add SWB negotiability validation test cases

• Added import for SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE check
• Implemented comprehensive testSWBsCannotBeNegotiable() test method
• Tests SWB with isToOrder=false passes validation
• Tests SWB with isToOrder=true fails validation
• Tests SWB without isToOrder field passes (defaults to false)
• Tests non-SWB documents (BOL) are marked as irrelevant

ebl/src/test/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecksTest.java

---

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (1) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📎 Requirement gaps (1)

1. BOL isToOrder=false allowed 📎 Requirement gap ≡ Correctness

Description

The new validation explicitly rejects SWB with isToOrder=true but still does not enforce that
BOL requires isToOrder=true, so BOL with isToOrder=false can still pass validation. The
added unit test also asserts BOL + isToOrder=false is irrelevant instead of invalid,
contradicting the required rule.

Code

ebl/src/test/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecksTest.java[R521-538]

+    // BOL with isToOrder = true should be irrelevant (not an SWB)
+    rootNode.removeAll();
+    rootNode.put("transportDocumentTypeCode", "BOL");
+    rootNode.put("isToOrder", true);
+    ConformanceCheckResult.ErrorsWithRelevance irrelevantResult =
+        (ConformanceCheckResult.ErrorsWithRelevance)
+            SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE.validate(rootNode);
+    assertEquals(1, irrelevantResult.errors().size());
+    assertFalse(irrelevantResult.isRelevant());
+
+    // BOL with isToOrder = false should also be irrelevant
+    rootNode.put("transportDocumentTypeCode", "BOL");
+    rootNode.put("isToOrder", false);
+    irrelevantResult =
+        (ConformanceCheckResult.ErrorsWithRelevance)
+            SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE.validate(rootNode);
+    assertEquals(1, irrelevantResult.errors().size());
+    assertFalse(irrelevantResult.isRelevant());

Evidence

PR Compliance ID 1 requires explicitly rejecting transportDocumentTypeCode=BOL when
isToOrder=false. The added check SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE only applies when
transportDocumentTypeCode is SWB, and the new test explicitly treats both BOL +
isToOrder=true and BOL + isToOrder=false as irrelevant rather than invalid.

Validate SWB requires isToOrder=false (and BOL requires isToOrder=true) for transportDocumentTypeCode/isToOrder combinations
ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java[319-338]
ebl/src/test/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecksTest.java[521-538]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
Validation is missing the required explicit rule that when `transportDocumentTypeCode` is `BOL`, `isToOrder` must be `true` (reject when `false` or absent).

## Issue Context
The PR adds `SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE`, but it only validates the `SWB` side of the rule. The added unit test currently expects `BOL` + `isToOrder=false` to be irrelevant, which contradicts the compliance requirement.

## Fix Focus Areas
- ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java[312-338]
- ebl/src/test/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecksTest.java[521-538]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

2. Duplicate negotiable SWB errors 🐞 Bug ⚙ Maintainability

Description

For payloads where transportDocumentTypeCode='SWB' and isToOrder=true, BOTH
ONLY_EBLS_CAN_BE_NEGOTIABLE and SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE will fail, producing two separate error
messages for the same invalid condition. This can unnecessarily bloat conformance reports and
potentially break consumers/tests that assume a single error for this violation.

Code

ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java[R1165-1169]

          VALID_PARTY_FUNCTION,
          VALID_PARTY_FUNCTION_HBL,
          ONLY_EBLS_CAN_BE_NEGOTIABLE,
+          SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE,
          EBL_AT_MOST_ONE_ORIGINAL_TOTAL,

Evidence

The PR adds SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE right after ONLY_EBLS_CAN_BE_NEGOTIABLE in the same check
lists, so both checks run for the same payload. ONLY_EBLS_CAN_BE_NEGOTIABLE triggers on
isToOrder=true and fails when transportDocumentTypeCode != 'BOL' (so it fails for SWB).
SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE independently triggers on transportDocumentTypeCode='SWB' and fails when
isToOrder=true. Both failures are surfaced as distinct error messages because mustEqual produces a
SimpleErrors error set on mismatch and conformance reports aggregate errors from each sub-check.

ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java[312-338]
ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java[1148-1203]
core/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/core/check/JsonAttribute.java[474-502]
core/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/core/check/ConformanceResult.java[20-22]
core/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/core/report/ConformanceReport.java[31-41]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
When `transportDocumentTypeCode='SWB'` and `isToOrder=true`, two separate validations fail:
- `ONLY_EBLS_CAN_BE_NEGOTIABLE` (because `isToOrder=true` implies `transportDocumentTypeCode` must be `BOL`)
- `SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE` (because `SWB` cannot be negotiable)

This yields duplicate error messages for the same underlying rule violation.

### Issue Context
Both checks are included in the same validation lists for SI and TD payload validation, so they will run in the same conformance evaluation.

### Fix Focus Areas
- ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java[312-318]
- ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java[1148-1203]

### Suggested fix
Update `ONLY_EBLS_CAN_BE_NEGOTIABLE` so it does not also fire for SWB (letting the new SWB-specific check be the single source of truth for SWB negotiability). For example:
- Change the `when` predicate from `isToOrder==true` to `isToOrder==true AND transportDocumentTypeCode != 'SWB'`.

Optionally add/adjust a unit test to assert that `ONLY_EBLS_CAN_BE_NEGOTIABLE` becomes irrelevant for `SWB + isToOrder=true` (and that `SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE` still fails).

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds a dedicated conformance rule to ensure Sea Waybills (SWB) are never marked negotiable (isToOrder=true), aligning validation with SWB business rules.

Changes:

• Introduces SWBS_CANNOT_BE_NEGOTIABLE validation in EblChecks.
• Registers the new validation in both static Shipping Instructions and Transport Document check lists.
• Adds unit tests covering pass/fail/irrelevant scenarios for the new validation.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
ebl/src/main/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecks.java	Adds and wires a new SWB negotiability validation into the standard check sets.
ebl/src/test/java/org/dcsa/conformance/standards/ebl/checks/EblChecksTest.java	Adds unit coverage for the new SWB negotiability rule.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[pedrocarvalhodcsa]

Seems good to me, I don't really understand the comment from copilot