Assertion BT-735-Lot and SR-DE-33

The bug is twofold:

1. There are two different xpath location for BT-735

First is:

BT-735-Lot in /*/cac:ProcurementProjectLot[cbc:ID/@schemeName='Lot']/cac:TenderingTerms/ext:UBLExtensions/ext:UBLExtension/ext:ExtensionContent/efext:EformsExtension/efac:StrategicProcurement/efac:StrategicProcurementInformation/efbc:ProcurementCategoryCode

and forbidden in "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "23", "24", "25", "26", "27", "28", "32", "33", "34", "35", "36", "37", "CEI", "T01", "T02", "X01", "X02"

Second is:

BT-735-LotResult in /*/ext:UBLExtensions/ext:UBLExtension/ext:ExtensionContent/efext:EformsExtension/efac:NoticeResult/efac:LotResult/efac:StrategicProcurement/efac:StrategicProcurementInformation/efbc:ProcurementCategoryCode

and forbidden in "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16", "17", "18", "19", "20", "21", "22", "23", "24", "25", "26", "27", "28", "32", "33", "34", "35", "36", "37", "CEI", "T01", "T02", "X01", "X02"

Currently, SR-DE-33 checks for the BT-735-LotResult which is only applicable to

1. 29-31 and e4 and is tested for in rule id="BR-DE-24-stats" assertion id=BT-735-LotResult

Because also ted example https://github.com/OP-TED/eForms-SDK/blob/1.7.0/examples/notices/can_24_maximal.xml uses BT-735 in both places, we will check for this with AND logic. Leaving it open if one place will be skipped later. See also https://github.com/OP-TED/eForms-SDK/discussions/596

2. Discrepancy between Annex and TED-SDK

1. TED-SDK forbidds BT-717 in notice type 32 but it is optionaly allowed in Annex

Solution

Delete SR-DE-33 cause it is tested de facto by id="BR-DE-24-stats" assertion id=BT-735-LotResult for those LotResults which have matching TenderingTerms