Arelle vs finrep

[Francisco Lelewell]

I'm trying to use arelle to validate a very simple FINREP xbrl csv report, but I'm having this error:
<entry code="oime:unknownConcept" level="error">
 <message concept="eba_met_3.4:GXI" path="/tableTemplates/F_40-01/columns/datapoint/propertyGroups/dp4177888/dimensions/concept">[oime:unknownConcept] The concept QName could not be resolved with available DTS: eba_met_3.4:GXI at /tableTemplates/F_40-01/columns/datapoint/propertyGroups/dp4177888/dimensions/concept - report.xbrl </message>
 <ref href="report.xbrl"/></entry>

I dont understand, since this table is not even in my report.

I'm attaching the dummy report, and command.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thank in advance,
Francisco

[Austin Matherne]

Hi Francisco,

Thank you for providing the test document and command you're using, it makes debugging much easier. Interestingly, I wasn't able to reproduce the error you mentioned when running the same command with your test document. A couple of things might explain the difference:

1. Different versions of Arelle: I'm on the latest release (2.38.19). You can check yours by running `arelleCmdLine.exe --version`. If you're on an older version, that could easily explain the difference in behavior.
2. Taxonomy packages: I downloaded the packages directly from the EBA website: specifically "b. Taxonomy package 4.2" and "d. Taxonomy package 4.2.1 (FINREP9DP)". If your copies differ in any way, that could account for the discrepancy.

Could you confirm you're on a recent version of Arelle and that your taxonomy packages are unmodified and sourced directly from the EBA website?

Thanks!

Austin Matherne

[Francisco Lelewell]

Thank you very much Austin, 
There might have been an error with the taxonomy  "Taxonomy package 4.2.1 (FINREP9DP)" , I have manage to get the expected results using only  "Taxonomy package 4.2" for a FINREP9 file, and using both for a FINREP9DP file.

So I'm going to try to get the newer version, and retry.

Any way, the problem seems to be fixed.
Thank you again.
Francisco Lelewell