Additional check: alternative address is an alternative to another address

[kathryn-ods]

Check:
If an address in the addresses array is of type "alternative" then there is also another address in the array with a different type

On fail:

Error message: An alternative address has been provided with no primary address.
Info message: Address: [address VALUE]

[kathryn-ods]

Original spec "If an address in the addresses array is of type "alternative" then there is also another address in the array"

2 possible edge cases here.

• I'm thinking it's not valid to have 2 addresses with type 'alternative' so have said it needs to be an address of another type.
• address.type is not a required field so can you have one address with no type and one alternative? It is sensible to be applying these kind of constraints at all when type isn't a required field??

@kd-ods thoughts?

[kathryn-ods]

Valid

[
  {
    "statementId": "1dc0e987-5c57-4a1c-b3ad-61353b66a9b7",
    "declarationSubject": "c359f58d2977",
    "statementDate": "2020-03-04",
    "recordId": "c359f58d2977",
    "recordType": "entity",
    "recordDetails": {
      "isComponent": false,
      "entityType": {
        "type": "registeredEntity",
        "addresses": [
          {
            "type": "business", 
            "address": "123"
          },
          {
            "type": "alternative",
            "address": "123"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  },
  {
    "statementId": "019a93f1-e470-42e9-957b-03559861b2e2",
    "declarationSubject": "c359f58d2977",
    "statementDate": "2020-03-04",
    "recordId": "10478c6cf6de",
    "recordType": "person",
    "recordDetails": {
      "isComponent": false,
      "personType": "knownPerson",
      "addresses": [
        {
          "type": "residence",
          "postCode": "123"
        },
        {
          "type": "alternative",
          "country": {
            "name": "United Kingdom" 
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  }
]

Invalid 1

[
  {
    "statementId": "1dc0e987-5c57-4a1c-b3ad-61353b66a9b7",
    "declarationSubject": "c359f58d2977",
    "statementDate": "2020-03-04",
    "recordId": "c359f58d2977",
    "recordType": "entity",
    "recordDetails": {
      "isComponent": false,
      "entityType": {
        "type": "registeredEntity",
        "addresses": [
          {
            "type": "alternative",
            "address": "123"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
]

Invalid 2

[
  {
    "statementId": "019a93f1-e470-42e9-957b-03559861b2e2",
    "declarationSubject": "c359f58d2977",
    "statementDate": "2020-03-04",
    "recordId": "10478c6cf6de",
    "recordType": "person",
    "recordDetails": {
      "isComponent": false,
      "personType": "knownPerson",
      "addresses": [
        {
          "type": "alternative",
          "postCode": "123"
        }
      ]
    }
  }
]

Edge case 1 - alternative address & address with no type

[
  {
    "statementId": "1dc0e987-5c57-4a1c-b3ad-61353b66a9b7",
    "declarationSubject": "c359f58d2977",
    "statementDate": "2020-03-04",
    "recordId": "c359f58d2977",
    "recordType": "entity",
    "recordDetails": {
      "isComponent": false,
      "entityType": {
        "type": "registeredEntity",
        "addresses": [
          {
            "type": "alternative",
            "address": "123"
          },
          {
            "address": "1234"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
]

Edge case 2 - 2 alternative addresses

[
  {
    "statementId": "019a93f1-e470-42e9-957b-03559861b2e2",
    "declarationSubject": "c359f58d2977",
    "statementDate": "2020-03-04",
    "recordId": "10478c6cf6de",
    "recordType": "person",
    "recordDetails": {
      "isComponent": false,
      "personType": "knownPerson",
      "addresses": [
        {
          "type": "alternative",
          "postCode": "123"
        },
        {
          "type": "alternative",
          "country": {
            "name": "United Kingdom" 
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  }
]

[kd-ods]

@kathryn-ods

Is it sensible to be applying these kind of constraints at all when type isn't a required field??

Good point. tbh, it's made me think that 'alternative' is just an unhelpful code. We should probably turn it into 'other', make the field required and reduce constraints. I can't see that loosening constraints would open up any particular loophole wrt BO verification. (For example, I don't imagine that red-flagging would depend on categorisation of addresses: if a BODS statement from one source categorised an entity's address as 'business' but the same entity's address in another source was categorised as 'other' that would not be of great interest. The address itself is the target of interest.)

Depending on what you think about the above, Kathryn, we may want to NOT work on this check during this round of work, pending a review of address type codes in the data standard.

[kathryn-ods]

We should probably turn it into 'other', make the field required and reduce constraints.

Yes I think this is sensible. I'm happy to leave this check out for now.

Do we already have an appropriate ticket to document this suggestion against?

[kathryn-ods]

I have added a new ticket here openownership/data-standard#725