-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
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
Commercial invoice simplification #776
Conversation
@@ -396,12 +395,12 @@ example: |- | |||
} | |||
} | |||
}, | |||
"consignee": { | |||
"consignee": [{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this really a "multiple". field?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok with this, but would prefer either a single consignee, or a way of identifying intermediaries
@@ -396,12 +395,12 @@ example: |- | |||
} | |||
} | |||
}, | |||
"consignee": { | |||
"consignee": [{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suppose if we permit intermediates, but will need to signify ultimately who is final
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think single consignee maps cleaner but we don't currently have a requirement for it.
required: | ||
- type | ||
minItems: 0 | ||
maxItems: 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here
This inlines and simplifies and tightens up Commercial Invoice: