Investigate @percentage ranges

[samuele-mattiuzzo]

IATI-Rulesets/rulesets/standard.json

Lines 109 to 132 in b88c627

	"range": {
	"cases": [
	{
	"paths": ["recipient-country/@percentage"],
	"min": 0.0, "max": 100.0
	},
	{
	"paths": ["recipient-region/@percentage"],
	"min": 0.0, "max": 100.0
	},
	{
	"paths": ["sector/@percentage"],
	"min": 0.0, "max": 100.0
	},
	{
	"paths": ["capital-spend/@percentage"],
	"min": 0.0, "max": 100.0
	},
	{
	"paths": ["country-budget-items/budget-item/@percentage"],
	"min": 0.0, "max": 100.0
	}
	]
	},

There's already a PR made by Vincent that addresses this at Schema level. Worth verifying the pull request, removing the rule/test and keep it at schema level.

To confirm with @IATI/bas that this is not a problem to enforce at schema level as well (adding a hard 0-100 schema check would not help values "close enough to be rounded" such as 99.8 so might put a lot of publishers off)

[samuele-mattiuzzo]

EDIT: this is labeled as 2.03 only because in 2.01 and 2.02 we only check the percentage value to be positive (>= 0.0). The assumptions below are for 2.03 only

This is currently undergoing internal discussion with @IATI/bas . Main takeaway points:

• if we enforce this at Schema level (where, correctly assumed already, makes sense to live), it'll enforce a hard check on the ranges potentially risking data being excluded from the datastore; this is the option I'm more keen on, but I also understand this needs to go through a bug fix proposal

• if we keep it at Ruleset level, then the rule is correct and won't prevent data from being imported; validation scores will be affected obviously but gives publishers space to fix it; my least preferred option, but time/effort wise would not require any further action from us

[akmiller01]

I guess this is a standard management question, whether percentage bounds should be schema-enforced. But doing so would probably require an integer upgrade as it's not been a part of the standard for so long.