Validation formats for Carrier & Broker/Dealer Registration Numbers

[GarethHarvey-EE]

Ultimately we would like to validate carrier and broker/dealer registration numbers against the source datasets for the 4 nations. However, this will take some time to implement so until then we will validate the format of these registration numbers by applying the following format validations per nation.

Please review and let us know if you have any registration numbers that do not conform to these patterns so that we can adjust accordingly.

Nation	Format (NB: where 9 is a digit 0-9)
EPA	CBDL999999, CBDU999999 (3+ digits)
SEPA	WCR/R/9999999, SCO/999999, SEA/999999, SNO/999999, SWE/999999, WCR/999999
NRW	CBDL999999, CBDU999999 (3+ digits)
NI	ROC UT 9,ROC UT 99,ROC UT 999,ROC UT 9999,ROC UT 99999, ROC LT 9, ROC LT 99, ROC LT 999, ROC LT 9999, ROC LT 99999 (Spaces are not mandatory, don’t reject if the spaces are not included).

[stuartpollicott]

@GarethHarvey-EE

Can you confirm this has not been updated, as per thread : #240 from only a few weeks ago.

My response is that you are pattern checking

{
"validation": {
"errors": [
{
"key": "carrier.registrationNumber",
"errorType": "InvalidFormat",
"message": ""carrier.registrationNumber" must be in a valid England, SEPA, NRW or NI format"
}
]
}
}

[stuartpollicott]

It would be more ideal if you were ready to check against a master database and provide a validation endpoint for us to implement at source systems, at the moment we are duplicating your validation rules which aren't correct against many carriers.licenses we hold.