0009433: ResultMetaDataType Extensions shall be grouped for future versions

ID	Project	Category	View Status	Date Submitted	Last Update

0009433	40001: Machinery	Feature Request	public	2024-02-21 16:38	2024-02-28 07:21

Reporter	Mohit Agarwal	Assigned To
Priority	normal	Severity	feature	Reproducibility	always
Status	new	Resolution	open

Summary	0009433: ResultMetaDataType Extensions shall be grouped for future versions
Description	Context: As per the OPC UA Encoding rules defined, a structure can ONLY have 32 optional fields. https://reference.opcfoundation.org/Core/Part6/v105/docs/5.2.7 Currently, IJT Joining Specification OPC 40450-1 UA CS for Joining Systems extends ResultMetaDataType and defines JoiningResultMetaDataType. ResultMetaDataType has 20 fields with 1 Mandatory and 19 Optional Fields. JoiningResultMetaDataType has 12 more optional fields which makes a total of 31 optional fields in a Structure. In future versions of Machinery Result - ResultMetaData extensions shall be handled by grouping some of the existing properties OR if a new field is added without grouping then it can be a blocker for OPC 40450-1 CS for Joining Systems Specification. Hence, adding this issue here for information and to ensure any extensions to ResultMetaDataType consider the limitation of OPC UA limit of 32 optional fields.
Tags	No tags attached.

Mohit Agarwal 2024-02-27 12:05 reporter ~0020859	o Future extensions of ResultMetaData can probably group StepId, PartId, InternalRecipeId, ExternalRecipeId, InternalConfigurationId, ExternalConfigurationId, ProductId, PartId, JobId INTO a common structure. o These identifiers itself are 9 optional parameters.

Peter Wehrfritz 2024-02-27 13:53 reporter ~0020860	Grouping parameters in a substructure would be a breaking change, however.

Mohit Agarwal 2024-02-27 14:20 reporter ~0020861	@Peter Agreed, if grouping is DONE, it will be a breaking change. I only intended to mention that, if WE are extending the Structure for some reason in future, then it is any how a change the Structure change which is a breaking change. If that is DONE, I just mentioned to group relevant things to be extensible by other companion specifications. We DO NOT have to change anything right now. It is a PREVENTIVE Mantis Issue to ensure, Machinery Result DOES NOT extend the ResultMetaData in future without considering the impact of Derived Specifications like IJT Joining and IJT Tightening.

Peter Wehrfritz 2024-02-27 16:27 reporter ~0020863	Ok, sorry, I have misunderstood you.

Mohit Agarwal 2024-02-28 07:21 reporter ~0020870	No problems, and thank you for your input as I agree with them. We just need to ensure future extensions are done by covering this use case.

Date Modified	Username	Field
2024-02-21 16:38	Mohit Agarwal	New Issue
2024-02-27 12:05	Mohit Agarwal	Note Added: 0020859
2024-02-27 13:53	Peter Wehrfritz	Note Added: 0020860
2024-02-27 14:20	Mohit Agarwal	Note Added: 0020861
2024-02-27 16:27	Peter Wehrfritz	Note Added: 0020863
2024-02-28 07:21	Mohit Agarwal	Note Added: 0020870