View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
000845310000-011: Historical AccessSpecpublic2023-02-28 17:51
ReporterMatthias Damm Assigned ToPaul Hunkar  
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityhave not tried
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Product Version1.04 
Target Version1.05.03 RC1Fixed in Version1.05.03 RC1 
Summary0008453: Timestamps related error handling needs clarification
Description

4.3 Timestamps
Defines:
If a request is made requesting both ServerTimestamp and SourceTimestamp and the Server is only collecting the SourceTimestamp the Server shall return Bad_TimestampsToReturnInvalid.

There may be servers that do not have ServerTimestamp at all but there are also servers that will have nodes with ServerTimestamp and nodes without. This is especially the case for aggregating servers.

At which level is this status code returned. As service level or operation level code.

The operation level would always work.

There is a related issue 0008452 for Part 4. But this is more related to Bad_InvalidTimestampArgument which is defined at operation level but not used in Part 11.

TagsNo tags attached.
Commit Version
Fix Due Date

Relationships

related to 0008452 closedMatthias Damm 10000-004: Services TimestampsToReturn related status codes for HistoryRead inconsistent 
related to 0008534 closedPaul Hunkar 10000-011: Historical Access Inconsistent use of Bad_TimestampsToReturnInvalid versus Bad_TimestampNotSupported 
related to 0008675 assignedPaul Hunkar Compliance Test Tool (CTT) Unified Architecture Historical Read raw, timestampsToReturn Neither, must return Bad_InvalidTimestampArgument at service level 

Activities

Paul Hunkar

2022-11-29 06:45

developer   ~0018198

Clarified that the Bad_TimestampsToReturnInvalid can be returned as a service level result if the historian does not support ServerTimestamps or it can be reported as a operation level result if a given HistoricalDataNode does not support ServerTimestamps.

Jim Luth

2022-12-08 18:27

administrator   ~0018281

Agreed to changes edited in Virtual F2F.

Matthias Damm

2023-02-20 20:48

developer   ~0018773

The resolution of this issue was overwritten by the resolution for issue 0008534

The use of BadTimestampsToReturnInvalid makes only sense for service level and for the case where the TimestampsToReturn parameter is Neither.
I like the resolution of 0008534 much more since it uses a deticated status (Bad
TimestampNotSupported) for the "server timestamp is not supported"

You need to remove the resolution text for this issue from part 11 and merge it with 0008534.

Paul Hunkar

2023-02-21 00:21

developer   ~0018779

they are different issue and the second did not overwrite the first. One is for a selection of "Neither" which is never ok (and does not make sense). The other is for selection of Server (or Source & Server), which might be ok on a node by node basis or possibly never ok on a given server. Note: data is always retrieved using SourceTimestamps, even if only server is requested.

Matthias Damm

2023-02-21 07:47

developer   ~0018780

I fully agree with your lasts note.

But it is not what is written before as resolution.

Bad_TimestampsToReturnInvalid was always defined (at least in 1.04) as status for invalid TimestampToReturn values including NEITEHER.

But Bad_TimestampsToReturnInvalid was also listed as status for not supported Server timestamp. And this now ALWAYS Bad TimestampNotSupported which is different than descried for the resolution of this issue.

Paul Hunkar

2023-02-28 05:05

developer   ~0018804

Last edited: 2023-02-28 17:50

Updated resolution to have the correct statement:
if "neither" is specified in TimeStampsToReturn - return Bad_TimestampsToReturnInvalid
if a server timestamp is specified and the server does not support it for the node ,return code is Bad_TimestampNotSupported, could be for service or operation

Jim Luth

2023-02-28 17:51

administrator   ~0018819

Agreed to updated resolution note.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2022-11-21 14:48 Matthias Damm New Issue
2022-11-21 14:48 Matthias Damm Relationship added related to 0008452
2022-11-22 17:12 Jim Luth Assigned To => Paul Hunkar
2022-11-22 17:12 Jim Luth Status new => assigned
2022-11-29 06:45 Paul Hunkar Status assigned => resolved
2022-11-29 06:45 Paul Hunkar Resolution open => fixed
2022-11-29 06:45 Paul Hunkar Fixed in Version => 1.05.03 RC1
2022-11-29 06:45 Paul Hunkar Note Added: 0018198
2022-12-08 18:27 Jim Luth Status resolved => closed
2022-12-08 18:27 Jim Luth Note Added: 0018281
2023-02-15 16:36 Paul Hunkar Relationship added related to 0008675
2023-02-20 20:48 Matthias Damm Status closed => feedback
2023-02-20 20:48 Matthias Damm Resolution fixed => reopened
2023-02-20 20:48 Matthias Damm Note Added: 0018773
2023-02-20 20:48 Matthias Damm Relationship added related to 0008534
2023-02-21 00:21 Paul Hunkar Note Added: 0018779
2023-02-21 07:47 Matthias Damm Note Added: 0018780
2023-02-21 07:47 Matthias Damm Status feedback => assigned
2023-02-28 05:05 Paul Hunkar Status assigned => resolved
2023-02-28 05:05 Paul Hunkar Resolution reopened => fixed
2023-02-28 05:05 Paul Hunkar Note Added: 0018804
2023-02-28 17:49 Jim Luth Note Edited: 0018804
2023-02-28 17:50 Jim Luth Note Edited: 0018804
2023-02-28 17:51 Jim Luth Status resolved => closed
2023-02-28 17:51 Jim Luth Note Added: 0018819