...
| Info |
|---|
In the bill XML, higher-level headings like Parts are not merely titles; they are XML tags which effectively ‘wrap’ (i.e. completely enclose) the provisions which are under that heading. For example, if a Bill contains two Parts, and Part 2 contains sections 4-6, then in the XML of that Bill sections 4-6 are all contained within an XML tag representing Part 2. If an amendment were to remove an existing heading, such as Part 2, a slightly complex transformation would be required to wrap or unwrap the provisions under that heading in the XML, so that they are instead enclosed by Part 1. |
We plan to improve handling of these types of amendments in future. Not all amendments of this type will fail, but when using auto-apply on these amendments it is best to proceed with caution.
“From beginning to end of line…” or “leave out line…” in an amendment can sometimes create bad XML when applied
Where a line in a bill begins with a number element - i.esub-section, paragraph, or sub-paragraph exists in a bill and the content of that sub-section or paragraph extends over more than one line, any amendment which leaves out the whole of the first line of that sub-section or paragraph can create bad XML when auto-applied. This is because the amendment instruction is interpreted as though the amendment intends to remove not only the text of that line but the sub-section or paragraph number at the start of the line too - e.g. (1), (2), (a), (b), (i), (ii), (iii) - and an amendment leaves out or substitutes that whole line, the auto-applied amendment may sometimes create bad XML. This results in some of the text of that sub-section remaining in the bill but without a number, which is invalid.
This problem does not arise where an instruction leaves out the entirety of a sub-section or paragraph. In those cases, the removal of the number is correct, since the sub-section or paragraph has been left out entirely. The problem only affects amendments which remove the whole of the first line of a multi-line sub-section or paragraph, leaving behind some other textual content of that sub-section or paragraph.
We intend to fix this particular case in future Lawmaker releases.
Amendments which leave out the text after a defined term sometimes fail to auto-apply
...
Amendments which add text immediately after a tagged cross-reference will sometimes fail to apply if the newly added text begins with a punctuation mark. In other cases, they may apply successfully but the added text will appear inside the cross-reference tagging, which is wrong. This is an edge-case which we plan to fix in a future support release.
...
An amendment in the form “leave out Schedule x and move the following Schedule--” may produce unexpected output when auto-applied: the new Schedule will be placed at the end of the bill, the omitted schedule will be marked as deleted, but the intervening schedules (between the omitted Schedule and the new Schedule at the end of the bill) will also be marked as deleted.
“Accept all” producing unexpected changes
...
When applying amendments such as these, it is advisable to note down the numbers and locations and re-check them after accepting all amendments.
Incorrect application of amendments which leave out a particular Schedule and insert another one
An amendment in the form “leave out Schedule x and move the following Schedule--” may produce unexpected output when auto-applied: the new Schedule will be placed at the end of the bill, the omitted schedule will be marked as deleted, but the intervening schedules (between the omitted Schedule and the new Schedule at the end of the bill) will also be marked as deleted.
Hints and tips
Create a duplicate working version before clicking “Accept all”
...