Troubleshooting Dic_nasc_113 Validation Errors: A Deep Dive

by Kenji Nakamura 60 views

Hey guys! Let's dive into this interesting case about the dic_nasc_113 validation error we've got here. It's a multilingual issue, which always adds a layer of complexity, but don't worry, we'll break it down together. This discussion falls under the italia, ansc category, so we know we're dealing with Italian regulations and standards. This is a critical area, as ensuring accuracy in birth records is super important for legal and administrative purposes. Let's get into the details and figure out how to resolve this!

Environment and Service Details

First off, let's talk about the environment. We're in the pre-production stage, which is great because it means we can catch these issues before they hit the live system. This gives us the chance to thoroughly test and validate everything. The specific service involved is R009 - Servizi cooperativi validazione evento, which translates to cooperative event validation services. This tells us that the error is occurring during the validation of an event, specifically within a cooperative service framework. This kind of setup often involves multiple systems interacting, so pinpointing the exact source of the error is key. The idOperazione (operation ID) is 4163084, which is a unique identifier for this specific validation process. Think of it as a case number that helps us track and manage this issue. Knowing this ID is essential for referencing this particular validation attempt in logs and databases. We need to use this ID to trace the steps of the validation process and see where things went wrong.

Unfortunately, the idEvento or idAnsc (event ID or ANSC ID) is missing from the provided information. This is a bit of a hiccup because these IDs would give us direct pointers to the specific event or record that's causing the validation error. Without these IDs, we'll need to rely more on the other details provided, like the idOperazione and the payload data, to figure things out. It's like trying to find a specific book in a library without knowing its call number – we'll need to use other search methods. The signal about this issue came from a Software House, which means an external vendor or development team noticed the problem during their testing or integration process. This is a good thing, as it shows they're actively checking for issues. It also means we might need to coordinate with them to get more information or to deploy a fix. The operator in charge, anna maraspin, along with the municipality, can provide additional context. The test date is 2025-08-06, which helps us narrow down the timeframe for when the error occurred. This date is crucial for searching logs and records, as it lets us focus on the relevant period. It's like having a timestamp for the error, making it easier to find.

Problem Description

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter: the problem description. The user, presumably Anna Maraspin, is having trouble understanding a validation error occurring with version 1.40 of the system. This immediately tells us that the issue is version-specific, which is a crucial piece of information. It suggests that a recent update or change in version 1.40 might be the culprit. We need to investigate what changes were introduced in this version that could be causing the validation to fail. The user mentions that the attached files (images) seem okay. This indicates they've already done some preliminary checks on the data itself, which is a good starting point. However, validation errors often involve more than just the data – they can be related to the structure, format, or business rules applied during the validation process. The images provided show snippets of the data and JSON structure. One image highlights a specific value that the user believes is correct according to the expected format. This is a critical detail, as it suggests the data itself might not be the issue, but rather how it's being interpreted or processed by the validation logic. The other images likely provide additional context about the data structure and values being used.

Payload Analysis: Diving Deep into the JSON

To really understand this issue, we need to dissect the payload, which is the JSON data being sent for validation. Let's break it down piece by piece.

The testataRichiesta (request header) section contains metadata about the request itself. It includes:

  • idComune: 22291 (Municipality ID)
  • idOperazioneComune: 89 (Municipality Operation ID)
  • dataOraRichiesta: "2025-08-06T08:46:31Z" (Request Date and Time in UTC format)
  • nomeApplicativo: "ASCOT Stato Civile" (Application Name, likely a civil registry system)
  • versioneApplicativo: "01.00.0000" (Application Version)
  • fornitoreApplicativo: "GPI" (Application Provider)

This section gives us context about where the request is coming from, when it was sent, and which application is involved. It's like the return address on an envelope, helping us trace the origin of the data.

The evento (event) section is where the real meat of the data lies. It describes the event being validated. Key fields include:

  • idVersion: 100022 (Event Version)
  • idTipoEvento: 1 (Event Type, likely a birth registration based on the description)
  • allegati: An array of attachments with their IDs and hashes. This suggests that supporting documents are being included with the event data.
  • idtipocontenuto: 1 (Content Type ID)
  • idUsecase: 11217000 (Use Case ID, providing more context about the specific scenario)
  • descrizioneCasoUso: "Dichiarazione entro i 10 giorni – resa dal procuratore della madre - Filiazione fuori dal matrimonio con consenso del padre ad essere nominato" (Use Case Description). This is a crucial piece of information! It tells us that we're dealing with a birth declaration made within 10 days by the mother's representative, for a child born out of wedlock, with the father's consent to be named. This complex scenario likely has specific validation rules associated with it.
  • stato: "CONFERMATO" (Status, indicating the event is confirmed)
  • flagsecretato: 0 (Secrecy Flag, indicating the event is not secret)
  • dataformazione: "2025-08-06" (Event Formation Date)
  • ora: "08" (Hour)
  • minuto: 34 (Minute)
  • numeroatto: 89 (Act Number)
  • tipoDichiarante: 7 (Declarant Type, we'd need a lookup table to understand what '7' means, but it's likely related to the mother's representative)
  • ausilioInterprete: false (Interpreter Assistance, indicating no interpreter was used)
  • idComuneRegistrazione: 22291 (Registration Municipality ID)
  • nomeComuneRegistrazione: "PREDOI" (Registration Municipality Name)
  • idProvinciaRegistrazione: 21 (Registration Province ID)
  • siglaProvinciaRegistrazione: "BZ" (Registration Province Code)
  • certificabile: 1 (Certifiable Flag, indicating the event can be certified)
  • datiProdotti: 3 (Products Data, unclear what this refers to without more context)
  • datiLingua: An array containing multilingual data. This is where things get interesting!

Multilingual Data Analysis

The datiLingua array contains information in different languages. Let's focus on the first entry, which has codiceLingua: "DE" (German). The composizioneCompleta field contains a long string of text in Italian, which seems to be a narrative description of the birth event. This raises a red flag! If the codiceLingua is "DE", we'd expect the composizioneCompleta to be in German, not Italian. This mismatch could be a source of the validation error. We need to investigate why Italian text is present in a German language entry. This could be due to a data entry error, a bug in the system that's generating the multilingual data, or a misunderstanding of how the multilingual data should be structured. The other fields within the datiLingua entry, like intestatari, padre, dichiarante, etc., contain specific details about the individuals involved in the event. These details also need to be validated for consistency and accuracy. For example, the padre (father) section contains information like indirizzoResidenza (residence address) and localitaEsteraNascita (foreign place of birth). These fields need to adhere to specific formats and validation rules. Similarly, the dichiarante (declarant) and datiDichiarante sections contain information about the person making the declaration, including details about their power of attorney (datiEssenzialiProcura). The datiDiNascita (birth data) section contains information about the place of birth (luogoFiliazione). All these details need to be checked against the relevant regulations and business rules. The main composizioneCompleta field at the top level of the evento section also contains a long string of Italian text, similar to the one in the datiLingua section. This duplication of text might be intentional, but it's worth investigating if it's contributing to the validation error. The remaining sections, like datiAnnotazioneModificativa, padre, madre, dichiarante, attoNotarileConsensoPadre, datiDiNascita, and intestatari, contain more detailed information about the event and the individuals involved. Each of these sections has its own set of fields and validation rules that need to be considered.

Potential Issues and Next Steps

Based on the analysis of the payload and the problem description, here are some potential issues:

  1. Language Mismatch: The codiceLingua "DE" in the datiLingua array has a composizioneCompleta field containing Italian text. This is a major red flag and likely a primary cause of the validation error.
  2. Data Validation Rules: The complex use case involving a declaration by the mother's representative for a child born out of wedlock with the father's consent likely has specific validation rules. We need to ensure all the data adheres to these rules.
  3. Version 1.40 Specific Issue: The user mentions the error occurring with version 1.40, suggesting a recent change might be the cause. We need to review the changes introduced in this version.
  4. Data Entry Errors: While the user believes the data is correct, there might be subtle data entry errors that are causing the validation to fail. We need to carefully review all the data fields.

Here are the next steps we should take:

  1. Investigate the Language Mismatch: This is the most pressing issue. We need to find out why Italian text is present in the German language entry.
  2. Review Version 1.40 Changes: We need to identify any changes in the validation logic or data structure introduced in version 1.40.
  3. Verify Data against Validation Rules: We need to systematically check each data field against the relevant validation rules for this specific use case.
  4. Check Data Entry: We need to carefully review the data for any potential data entry errors.
  5. Reproduce the Error: We need to try to reproduce the error in a controlled environment to gather more information.

By systematically investigating these potential issues, we should be able to pinpoint the root cause of the validation error and implement a fix. This is a great example of how detailed analysis and a step-by-step approach can help us solve complex problems!

In conclusion, addressing this [SC]: dic_nasc_113 validation error requires a comprehensive approach. By analyzing the environment, service details, and payload, we've identified potential issues such as language mismatches and version-specific errors. Taking systematic steps to investigate and resolve these issues will ensure data accuracy and system reliability. Let’s keep collaborating to get this resolved efficiently!