[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VALIDATOR-330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13885509#comment-13885509
]
Sebb commented on VALIDATOR-330:
--------------------------------
Further research shows that the JO99 examples are not actually valid [1]
examples.
It appears that 01,02, and 99 are not specifically excluded by the standard as
check digits [2].
But assuming that implementations all follow the spirit of the standard it
would be possible to check the digits.
[1] http://www.swift.com/dsp/resources/documents/IBAN_Registry.pdf
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number#Generating_IBAN_check_digits
> IbanCheckDigit.isValid() returns True for some invalid IBANs
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: VALIDATOR-330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VALIDATOR-330
> Project: Commons Validator
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Routines
> Affects Versions: 1.4.0 Release
> Reporter: Peter Shawe
> Assignee: Sebb
>
> For example, isValid() returns True for both of these IBANs;
> "IE01AIBK93118702569045" and "IE98AIBK93118702569045". The "IE98" version is
> the correct one (confirmed with online checkers, which also fail the "IE01"
> version).
> calculate() correctly returns "98". As a workaround I'm calling calculate()
> and comparing the result with the checksum in the original IBAN.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
