vatnumber issue17

Looking at the pseudo-spec linked from wikipedia[1], it appears that the series for the 9755 checksum really starts at 100XXXXXX not at 101XXXXXX.
Here is a patch that fixes the check and adds the relevant test sample.

[1] http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ebu/developer-mins100309.htm - powerpoint slide 41

[ced, 2011-09-21 13:21:00]

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/__init__.py
File vatnumber/__init__.py (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/__init__.py#oldcode601
vatnumber/__init__.py:601: if int(vat[0:3]) > 100:
It just needs to change ">" into ">="
to keep the code as it is because it will allow easily new rules.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/tests.py
File vatnumber/tests.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/tests.py#newcode140
vatnumber/tests.py:140: ('GB', '100190874', True),
Why not put it with the same length numbers?

[odo, 2011-09-21 13:52:23]

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/__init__.py
File vatnumber/__init__.py (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/__init__.py#oldcode601
vatnumber/__init__.py:601: if int(vat[0:3]) > 100:
On 2011/09/21 13:21:01, ced wrote:
> It just needs to change ">" into ">="
> to keep the code as it is because it will allow easily new rules.

Sure, why not. I thought it would improve readability and make it more pythonic.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/tests.py
File vatnumber/tests.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5085044/diff/1/vatnumber/tests.py#newcode140
vatnumber/tests.py:140: ('GB', '100190874', True),
On 2011/09/21 13:21:01, ced wrote:
> Why not put it with the same length numbers?

Hmm, I put it randomly because the list was not really sorted by size at the
moment. Doesn't hurt to move it, though...

[ced, 2011-10-22 15:37:47]

Can be closed