View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0004671 | 10000-005: Information Model | Spec | public | 2019-03-11 17:28 | 2021-03-04 18:52 |
Reporter | David Levine | Assigned To | Jeff Harding | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | have not tried |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Summary | 0004671: All conformance units a server supports should be listed in an array under the Server node | ||||
Description | A client needs to know the capabilities and features supported by a server in order to determine the best way to interact with it. Profiles are too coarse and the ServerCapabilities and OperationLimits do not sufficiently instruct a client in how to deal with the server. All servers shall include a node that specifies which conformance units it supports. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Commit Version | |||||
Fix Due Date | |||||
related to | 0006546 | closed | Randy Armstrong | NodeSets, XSDs and Generated Code | All conformance units a server supports should be listed in an array under the Server node |
|
I'm assuming this is a request for optional conformance units - since a profile does provided enough information for mandatory conformance units |
|
That is correct. Required conformance units can be assumed to be there. |
|
Add a bucket to contain the supported CUs but this CU list is only a subset of all CU declared as "must be declared" in the profile database. The structure should have an indication of full or partial support and if partial what namespaces it is supported in. |
|
The reporter David Levine is willing to assist on this. |
|
Are we sure we have thought this through? I started to add the update to Part 5 which would include a new Property in ServerCapabilitiesType. My issue is the ConformanceUnit identifier. I think it should be a unique ID rather than the name of the conformance unit. Currently i don't think there is such a thing. |
|
Either a unique string or a unique numeric ID is fine with me. How are existing CUs identified? I'd recommend using the same identifier |
|
Add a new Property to ServerCapabilitiesType which will be an array of qualified names. The future database will provide the correct qualified names. |
|
Added ConformanceUnits Property to ServerCapabilitiesType. |
|
Agreed to changes in Virtual F2F. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2019-03-11 17:28 | David Levine | New Issue | |
2019-03-12 02:56 | Paul Hunkar | Note Added: 0010047 | |
2019-03-12 02:56 | Paul Hunkar | Project | Certification => 10000-005: Information Model |
2019-03-12 02:56 | Paul Hunkar | Category | Feature Request => Api Change |
2019-04-02 15:36 | David Levine | Note Added: 0010088 | |
2019-04-02 15:41 | Jim Luth | Severity | major => feature |
2019-04-02 15:41 | Jim Luth | Category | Api Change => Spec |
2019-04-02 16:00 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0010090 | |
2019-04-02 16:00 | Jim Luth | Assigned To | => Jeff Harding |
2019-04-02 16:00 | Jim Luth | Status | new => assigned |
2019-04-02 16:01 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0010091 | |
2020-06-08 19:21 | Jeff Harding | Note Added: 0012193 | |
2020-06-08 19:21 | Jeff Harding | Assigned To | Jeff Harding => Paul Hunkar |
2020-06-08 19:21 | Jeff Harding | Status | assigned => feedback |
2020-06-30 14:54 | David Levine | Note Added: 0012514 | |
2020-06-30 14:54 | David Levine | Status | feedback => assigned |
2020-12-09 16:37 | Jeff Harding | Note Added: 0013431 | |
2020-12-09 16:37 | Jeff Harding | Assigned To | Paul Hunkar => Jeff Harding |
2021-01-29 19:48 | Jeff Harding | Status | assigned => resolved |
2021-01-29 19:48 | Jeff Harding | Resolution | open => fixed |
2021-01-29 19:48 | Jeff Harding | Fixed in Version | => 1.05 |
2021-01-29 19:48 | Jeff Harding | Note Added: 0013637 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Issue cloned: 0006546 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Relationship added | related to 0006546 |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013977 |