Generate election definition

[michielp1807]

DOD checklist

TODO:

• Add diff tests to prevent unexpected changes, like we did for the 210s
• Is it correct that max_votes is always an empty tag? Seems to be the case in the files I checked.
• Do we need to specify a proper managing authority? Seems like the election definitions don't include this for the 110a.
• Registered party names should not come from the loaded streams, but from the known registered parties that previously registered at the Kiesraad, right? -> part of Implement a standard list of appellations (aanduidingen) to select #1016
• Including (the relevant part of) the election tree in the definition is still w.i.p. for rust-eml-nl

Converting MasterElectionTree.xml (MET) => ElectionTree

• Get top level Region for election ("STAAT" for EK/TK)
• Get all sub regions (but skip e.g. "PROVINCIAAL_KIESKRING" because we don't use that one?) -> how do we know which regions we want to include? maybe only top, bottom, and those with a relevant committee?
• Get Committees for the current ElectionCategory

See kiesraad/rust-eml-nl#41 (comment):

• TK25: STAAT, KIESKRING, GEMEENTE
• EK23: STAAT, PROVINCIE, STEMBUREAU (in MET: PROVINCIAAL_STEMBUREAU)
• PS23: PROVINCIE, KIESKRING, GEMEENTE (in MET: PROVINCIAAL_KIESKRING)
• AB23: WATERSCHAP, KIESKRING, GEMEENTE (in MET: WATERSCHAP_KIESKRING, WATERSCHAP_GEMEENTE)

(MET parsing still needs to be build)

The MET also includes two new region types:

• "KIESCOLLEGE": added recently in eml-nl: kiesraad/EML_NL@e24f616
• "EILANDSGEMEENTE": not yet in eml-nl?

For PR maintainer

Perform these checks before marking the PR as ready:

• I have linked the PR to at least one issue.
• I assigned the PR to myself.
• I have added a description how to test this PR (see "Review Instructions").
• I have added documentation where necessary.

For reviewer

• I have read all code changes.
• I have audited the code quality.
• I have tested the changes either or both:
  • locally
  • on the test environment (preferred)
• I have validated that the PR is functionally correct (use-cases, figma designs, etc.)

Review instructions

[github-actions]

Sigrid maintainability feedback

---

🔒Enable security insights in your CI pipeline to detect vulnerabilities early.
Start using Sigrid CI for Security today. Learn more.

---

⏸️️ You are still below your objective of 3.5 stars.

Show details

Sigrid compared your code against the baseline of 2026-07-27.

👍 What went well?

You fixed or improved 1 refactoring candidates.

Risk	System property	Location
🔴	Duplication (Fixed)	src/core/election/configs.rs line 62-75 src/core/election/configs.rs line 110-123

👎 What could be better?

Unfortunately, 10 refactoring candidates were introduced or got worse.

Risk	System property	Location
🔴	Duplication (Introduced)	src/core/election/configs.rs line 75-88 src/core/election/configs.rs line 145-158
🔴	Unit Size (Introduced)	src/models/eml/eml210.rs eml210(PgStore,ElectionConfig,PoliticalGroup,CandidateListId,ModelLocale)
🟠	Unit Size (Introduced)	src/models/eml/mod.rs ElectionSubcategory.from(ElectionConfig)
🟠	Unit Size (Introduced)	src/models/eml/eml110a.rs eml110a(ElectionConfig,Vec<String>)
🟠	Unit Size (Introduced)	src/models/eml/eml210.rs try_into()
🟠	Unit Interfacing (Introduced)	src/models/eml/eml210.rs eml210(PgStore,ElectionConfig,PoliticalGroup,CandidateListId,ModelLocale)
🟠	Module Coupling (Worsened)	src/core/election/configs.rs
🟡	Unit Size (Introduced)	src/models/eml/mod.rs ElectionIdentifierBuilder.try_from(ElectionConfig)
⚪️		+ 2 more

📚 Remaining technical debt

1 refactoring candidates didn't get better or worse, but are still present in the code you touched.

View this system in Sigrid to explore your technical debt

⭐️ Sigrid ratings

System property	System on 2026-07-27	Before changes	New/changed code
Volume	N/A	N/A	N/A
Duplication	5.3	3.3	4.4
Unit Size	3.1	2.3	1.9
Unit Complexity	4.5	5.5	5.5
Unit Interfacing	2.4	5.5	1.6
Module Coupling	3.0	0.5	0.9
Component Independence	1.9	N/A	N/A
Component Entanglement	1.6	N/A	N/A
Maintainability	3.1	2.2	2.4

💬 Did you find this feedback helpful?

We would like to know your thoughts to make Sigrid better.
Your username will remain confidential throughout the process.

• ✅ Yes, these findings are useful
• 🔸 The findings are false positives
• 🔹 These findings are not important to me

---

View this system in Sigrid

[github-actions]

PDF diff summary

Template	Input	Status
model-h1	model-h1-example-1.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h1	model-h1-example-2.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h1	model-h1-example-3.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h3-1	model-h3-1-example-1.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h3-1	model-h3-1-example-2.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h3-1	model-h3-1-example-3.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h3-2	model-h3-2-example-1.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h3-2	model-h3-2-example-2.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h3-2	model-h3-2-example-3.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h4	model-h4-example-1.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h4	model-h4-example-2.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h4	model-h4-example-3.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h9	model-h9-example-1.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h9	model-h9-example-2.pdf	🔵 identical
model-h9	model-h9-example-3.pdf	🔵 identical
model-i4	model-i4-example-1.pdf	🔵 identical
model-i4	model-i4-example-2.pdf	🔵 identical

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
96.1% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud