Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explicitly match protocol #118

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 10, 2023
Merged

Explicitly match protocol #118

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 10, 2023

Conversation

ajmedeio
Copy link

@ajmedeio ajmedeio commented Oct 3, 2023

Hi @manusimidt,

It's a shame every time we talk it's about failed filings! I hope you're doing well and your studies are challenging but rewarding.

I encountered an error when processing a filing with SEC EDGAR accession number: 0001010549-18-000409 which contains filenames that start with http, including the custom taxonomy. Unfortunately, this means the checks for importing a remote file versus local file makes the wrong determination as you'll see in the PR's changes.

Encountered while processing SEC EDGAR filing 0001010549-18-000409 which contains filenames that start with http, including the custom taxonomy.
@ajmedeio
Copy link
Author

Hi @manusimidt,

Wondering if you had a chance to look at this. Lemme know if I can elaborate on anything or help otherwise.

@manusimidt
Copy link
Owner

Hey, sorry for the late reply.
Thank you for your pull request!
That's a very strange filing you found there.

They have the following line in their taxonomy extension schema file:

<schema ... targetNamespace="http://http/20180930">

and the following line in their instance file:

<link:schemaRef xlink:href="http-20180930.xsd" xlink:type="simple"/>

Usually the schemaRef and the targetNamespace are either relative or absolute URLs...
I'm almost surprised that the changes you suggested will solve the problem. But either way, they look like a reasonable change, so I will test it and implement it.

Thanks for the pull!

@manusimidt manusimidt self-assigned this Oct 10, 2023
@manusimidt manusimidt merged commit 233f7b7 into manusimidt:main Oct 10, 2023
2 checks passed
manusimidt added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2023
@ajmedeio
Copy link
Author

ajmedeio commented Oct 11, 2023

I totally agree, out of millions of filings, this is the only case I've seen of this. It's as if they had a bug in their side while producing it. We'll be testing again with the new fix and I'll keep you posted.

Thanks again!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants