View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0006387 | NodeSets, XSDs and Generated Code | Api Change | public | 2021-01-19 17:18 | 2021-02-23 17:53 |
| Reporter | Jim Luth | Assigned To | Randy Armstrong | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Summary | 0006387: Semantics of Structures with optional fields not well defined | ||||
| Description | When the Server receives a "Write" request with Structure where some optional field is absent, what is the server supposed to do? a) Assume some default value and perform the write with it The "Write" here is an example, similar questions arise with input arguments to Call, and also data returned to the Client (or contained in PubSub datasets). The same issue may apply to empty Unions (Union with Switch Field equal to 0), but there in the mappings the spec says "A Union with no fields present has the same meaning as a NULL value. A Union with any field present is not a NULL value even if the value of the field itself is NULL.", so that it at least some answer, it looks like that in both cases the Server is actually supposed to process the value somehow? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Commit Version | |||||
| Fix Due Date | |||||
| related to | 0006386 | closed | Randy Armstrong | Semantics of Structures with optional fields not well defined |
|
|
The bit for an optional field is really a "NULL" bit to say if an optional field is present or not. This is true on write as well as read. So if I write 0 to a bit I am effectively setting the field to NULL. |
|
|
In Part 3 I have added the following to the IsOptional field of StructureField "An optional field that is not included in a Structure shall be understood as a NULL value by Applications." |
|
|
Accepted text in 1.05 draft, but needs 1.04 Errata to close. |
|
|
Cloned by mistake. |
|
|
Agreed to no change required. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | New Issue | |
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | Status | new => assigned |
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | Assigned To | => Randy Armstrong |
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | Issue generated from: 0006386 | |
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013569 | |
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013570 | |
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013571 | |
| 2021-01-19 17:18 | Jim Luth | Relationship added | related to 0006386 |
| 2021-02-04 13:01 | Randy Armstrong | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2021-02-04 13:01 | Randy Armstrong | Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2021-02-04 13:01 | Randy Armstrong | Note Added: 0013678 | |
| 2021-02-23 17:53 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
| 2021-02-23 17:53 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013795 |
