View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0007269 | 10000-003: Address Space | Spec | public | 2021-09-20 21:06 | 2022-06-20 11:59 |
| Reporter | Jeff Harding | Assigned To | Jeff Harding | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Product Version | 1.05.00 RC1 | ||||
| Target Version | 1.05.00 | Fixed in Version | 1.05.01 | ||
| Summary | 0007269: StructureType asymmetry of new enumeration values | ||||
| Description | In Table 33 StructureType Values, 1.05 RC review from Herbert Oppmann: I understand, that new values are required in this enumeration to ensure that existing V1.04 clients do not try to interpret this new V1.05 feature. But why this asymmetry to not have Structures with optional fields with subtyping (even if this combination is currently not required)? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Commit Version | |||||
| Fix Due Date | |||||
|
|
After review we concluded the values of the StructureTypes are arbitrary and no "symmetry" should be expected nor should any numeric interpretation of the select values be done. |
|
|
Agreed that this is published in 1.05.01. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-09-20 21:06 | Jeff Harding | New Issue | |
| 2021-11-23 18:07 | Jim Luth | Assigned To | => Jeff Harding |
| 2021-11-23 18:07 | Jim Luth | Status | new => assigned |
| 2022-01-13 19:21 | Jeff Harding | Note Added: 0015708 | |
| 2022-01-13 19:21 | Jeff Harding | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2022-01-13 19:21 | Jeff Harding | Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2022-06-20 11:59 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
| 2022-06-20 11:59 | Jim Luth | Fixed in Version | => 1.05.01 |
| 2022-06-20 11:59 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0016873 |