Business API / Filer: director records identify distinct party

[severinbeauvais]

(Found in UAT.)

1. On Mar 20, AMANDA TEST was appointed.
2. A new COD, backdated to Feb 11, again appointed AMANDA TEST (same name and address)
3. The API or Filer added a roles record to this director:

Change A new director (with same name/address) should be appointed. We must identify each new director as a distinct new director, rather than trying to match them based upon name/address etc. This could use a GUID or party ID. See further comments below.

Sample business: https://test.business-dashboard.bcregistry.gov.bc.ca/BC1043959?accountid=1999

This is what the UI shows:

I was able to file a COD with the above data (plus a new director I added). However, the business dashboard doesn't show both instances of AMANDA TEST:

[severinbeauvais]

FYI, @Mihai-QuickSilverDev

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

• Since AMANDA TEST was only appointed initially on March 20, another appointment on March 19, for AMANDA TEST, would be just a coincidence of name - different corp_party_id.
• Directors should be governed by Corp_Party_ID, not by identical names or addresses.
• Unless the system circumvents the rules and picks-up another corp_party_id based on name.

[mstanton1]

A use case for the same name is a child with the same name as their parent. We have experienced this in multiple registries systems, and the child or parent are not always differentiated by a term like junior or senior. I would agree with the feedback from Mihai. If a new appointment takes place on a different date, that would be a different party. Whatever ID/guid is used should be distinct. We should only be changing an existing party if the user, in the system, clicks the button to edit an existing party.