View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0006546 | NodeSets, XSDs and Generated Code | Api Change | public | 2021-03-04 18:52 | 2021-11-17 18:58 |
Reporter | Jim Luth | Assigned To | Randy Armstrong | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | have not tried |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Fixed in Version | 1.05.00 | ||||
Summary | 0006546: 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 | 0004671 | closed | Jeff Harding | 10000-005: Information Model | 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. |
|
Fixed in 1.05. |
|
Reviewed with Randy -- this was fixed in 1.05.00 |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | New Issue | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Status | new => assigned |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Assigned To | => Randy Armstrong |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Issue generated from: 0004671 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013969 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013970 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013971 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013972 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013973 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013974 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013975 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0013976 | |
2021-03-04 18:52 | Jim Luth | Relationship added | related to 0004671 |
2021-03-05 15:18 | Jim Luth | Project | 10000-005: Information Model => NodeSets, XSDs and Generated Code |
2021-03-05 15:18 | Jim Luth | Category | Spec => Api Change |
2021-03-07 18:20 | Randy Armstrong | Status | assigned => resolved |
2021-03-07 18:20 | Randy Armstrong | Resolution | open => fixed |
2021-03-07 18:20 | Randy Armstrong | Note Added: 0014005 | |
2021-11-17 18:58 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
2021-11-17 18:58 | Jim Luth | Fixed in Version | => 1.05.00 |
2021-11-17 18:58 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0015364 |