Non-ISO Dates Incorrectly Evaluated as Compliance in Demo Instance
🐛 Bug Report
Summary
Non-ISO date formats (e.g., 2024-06-10T08:39:17664) are incorrectly flagged as Compliance in the demo instance, while they are correctly evaluated as Incident in the local instance.
Steps to Reproduce
-
Run validation in the demo instance with a dataset containing non-ISO-compliant dates.
-
Scroll to the respective validation checks in the generated report.
-
Compare with results from the local instance using the same dataset and constraints.
What is the current bug behavior?
-
Demo instance evaluates non-ISO-compliant dates as Compliance.
-
Local instance correctly flags these dates as Incident.
What is the expected correct behavior?
Non-ISO-compliant dates should consistently be evaluated as Incident across both demo and local instances.
Relevant Logs, Screenshots, or Gifs
Demo instance (first run) - scroll to 26A: https://aqinda.gwdg.de/report/b562da52-0309-416a-b9b0-4bea7751d0b4/qpm
Demo instance (second run) - scroll to 26_Iso-konform: https://aqinda.gwdg.de/report/39ce9877-2cd4-403a-96f3-73baeb4d0a44/qpm
Local instance: 
Report: constrainify_report_d3fe8a7e-db36-49d3-90ea-80aba2d79357.json
constrainify_report_d3fe8a7e-db36-49d3-90ea-80aba2d79357__1_.csv
Environment Details
- Instance: Demo (affected), Local (not affected)
- Dataset: Kulturerbe Niedersachsen data in DDB
Possible Fix or Suggested Solution
Additional Context
Likely an issue specific to the demo instance configuration or evaluation engine rather than QPM itself. Needs investigation of demo environment. Closely related to #102
Another example:
Demo version -> mds0026: https://aqinda.gwdg.de/report/d524a910-be13-424f-9e93-99b339bc7d97/qpm (only 3 incidents)
Local version, same constraints, same dataset: 