View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0005623 | 10000-004: Services | Spec | public | 2020-05-06 18:35 | 2020-06-16 15:45 |
| Reporter | Jouni Aro | Assigned To | Matthias Damm | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | unable to reproduce | ||
| Summary | 0005623: Usage of default values for Method argument requires clarification | ||||
| Description | Amendment 3 gives an example for using a default value for a method argument: "Input1 as a numeric input argument with a HasArgumentDescription Reference to a later, it is declared that "The semantic of the HasOptionalInputArgumentDescription ReferenceType – extends the semantic of the HasArgumentDescription ReferenceType to reference optional input arguments of a Method NodeClass. Optional input arguments shall always follow any non-optional input arguments in the InputArguments array. For example, if a method has 3 arguments with 1 being optional then the 3rd argument shall be the optional one." However, the obvious fact that default values for method arguments are only sensible for optional arguments is not mentioned and the example even contradicts that. Or, if a default value can really be given for any argument, how is the client supposed to call the method - providing Null values? Is this really the intention? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Commit Version | |||||
| Fix Due Date | |||||
|
|
In Part 4 Table 65 the description of inputArguments[] states This isn't correct as optional input arguments are defined by the use of a HasOptionalInputArgumentDescription reference. Proper description would be something like "If a Method has optional input arguments, these optional input arguments are indicated by the Method using ’s DefaultInputValues HasOptionalInputArgumentDescription References to metadata describing the HasOptionalInputArgumentDescription Reference Type is defined in Part 3." |
|
|
The problem is already fixed in the latest 1.05 version of Part 4. Checked in OPC 10000-4 - UA Specification Part 4 - Services Draft 1.05.08.docx |
|
|
Agreed it was fixed long ago in Virtual F2F. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-05-06 18:35 | Jouni Aro | New Issue | |
| 2020-05-14 18:49 | Jeff Harding | Note Added: 0012057 | |
| 2020-05-14 18:51 | Jeff Harding | Project | 10000-003: Address Space => 10000-004: Services |
| 2020-05-14 18:52 | Jeff Harding | Assigned To | => Matthias Damm |
| 2020-05-14 18:52 | Jeff Harding | Status | new => assigned |
| 2020-06-10 19:07 | Matthias Damm | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2020-06-10 19:07 | Matthias Damm | Resolution | open => unable to reproduce |
| 2020-06-10 19:07 | Matthias Damm | Note Added: 0012233 | |
| 2020-06-14 11:51 | Matthias Damm | Relationship added | related to 0004542 |
| 2020-06-14 11:52 | Matthias Damm | Relationship deleted | related to 0004542 |
| 2020-06-16 15:45 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
| 2020-06-16 15:45 | Jim Luth | Fixed in Version | => 1.05 |
| 2020-06-16 15:45 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0012344 |