View Issue Details

Jump to NotesJump to History
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
000943340001: MachineryFeature Requestpublic2024-02-21 16:382025-07-07 13:49
ReporterMohit Agarwal Assigned ToWolfgang Mahnke  
PrioritynormalSeverityfeatureReproducibilityalways
Status confirmedResolutionopen 
Summary0009433: 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.

TagsNo tags attached.

Activities

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.

Wolfgang Mahnke

2025-07-07 13:49

developer   ~0023090

Needs to be discussed in working group

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
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
2025-07-07 13:49 Wolfgang Mahnke Assigned To => Wolfgang Mahnke
2025-07-07 13:49 Wolfgang Mahnke Status new => confirmed
2025-07-07 13:49 Wolfgang Mahnke Note Added: 0023090