(Some) CCDA sections don't confirm to backward compatibility requirement

[jwaga]

While testing a scenario with ccd produced by mdht (and focusing on problems section), I got an error on https://ttpedge.sitenv.org/ttp/#/validators/ccdar2#ccdaValdReport saying

The Problem Section template id, Root Value = 2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.5.1 and Extension Value = No Extension value is not present in the submitted CCDA's

I've noticed that the problems section identifiers were constructed as follows:

<templateId root="2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.5.1" extension="2015-08-01"/>
<templateId root="2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.5"/>
<templateId root="2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.5" extension="2015-08-01"/>

This seems to be non-compliant with the rules described in 3.1.2 Assertion of Compatibility in HL7 CDA R2 IG: Consolidated CDA Templates for Clinical Note (US Realm), DSTU R2.1—Vol. 1: Intro document. (See the problems section example there)
When I manually inserted

<templateId root="2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.5.1"/>

... to the identifiers, the test site validation passed.
I've noticed also that quite a few sections are produced in the same way, seems like most "entries required" sections.

I'm using the current code with consol2 from Dec 21, 2018.
Thanks for the great work, I don't know what I'd do without this libraries.

[swmuir]

I was able to duplicate - the issue is the runtime uses inheritance to drive initialization
in this case the template are not inheriting - we will look into it
thanks
sean