You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Summary of the bug or issue
The two MIC fields operatingMarketIdentifierCode and marketIdentifierCode in the SecuritiesListing object have clunky descriptions. Additionally the validation is complicated since whether the exchange is a segment can only be inferred from the two MIC values (rather than being explicitly stated). All of this is somewhat a by-product of ISO 10383 itself. Nevertheless, there may be a nicer way of doing things.
Suggested resolution
One option to consider would be pushing the stock exchange info down a level and adding an isSegment boolean field, so:
Summary of the bug or issue
The two MIC fields
operatingMarketIdentifierCode
andmarketIdentifierCode
in the SecuritiesListing object have clunky descriptions. Additionally the validation is complicated since whether the exchange is a segment can only be inferred from the two MIC values (rather than being explicitly stated). All of this is somewhat a by-product of ISO 10383 itself. Nevertheless, there may be a nicer way of doing things.Suggested resolution
One option to consider would be pushing the stock exchange info down a level and adding an isSegment boolean field, so:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: