View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0004534 | 10000-003: Address Space | Spec | public | 2018-12-13 23:54 | 2020-11-10 07:23 |
| Reporter | Jim Luth | Assigned To | Jeff Harding | ||
| Priority | high | Severity | major | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Summary | 0004534: Are arrays valid in the Value of a KeyValuePair Structure / Handling of arrays in BaseDataType | ||||
| Description | We allow the use of BaseDataType in Structure fields, Variable Values, Method Arguments and Event fields. In Variable Values, Method Arguments and Event fields we allow to specify the Value Rank as -2 (any) if we want to allow scalar values and arrays for concrete values. In fields of Structure DataTypes, we only allow -1 (scalar) or >0 (array or more dimensions). This is necessary for concrete DataTypes since they are directly embedded into the structure. But fields of Structure DataTypes with BaseDataType are encoded as Variant. But a Variant can contain scalar values or arrays (one or more dimensions). Therefore this limitation is not necessary. Especially in a structure like KeyValuePair, where the Value field is defined as scalar BaseDataType, I assume we want to allow also that the value contains an array e.g. an array of UInt32. Is this valid? This question also applies to the Body field of the UABinaryFileDataType | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Commit Version | |||||
| Fix Due Date | |||||
| related to | 0004449 | closed | Jeff Harding | 10000-005: Information Model | Are arrays valid in the Value of a KeyValuePair Structure / Handling of arrays in BaseDataType |
| related to | 0004535 | closed | Matthias Damm | 10000-014: PubSub | Are arrays valid in the Value of a KeyValuePair Structure / Handling of arrays in BaseDataType |
| related to | 0006224 | closed | Jim Luth | UA Specification | Inconsistency in type definitions regarding BaseDataType |
|
|
yes, we are at least silent about this option, and we don't think we need clarification. |
|
|
Clarify in Part 3 that ValueRank of -2 is allowed for a StructureField of BaseDataType. Clarify its use in Part 5 Key/Value pair construct. Clarify UABinaryFileDataType in Part 14. Notation for ValueRank -2 is ([]) |
|
|
changed the description of the valueRank to "The value rank for the field. |
|
|
In the Erlangen F2F we agreed that BaseDataType implies the value can contain any DataType with any ValueRank and that we just need a clarification in Part 3. Matthias will provide a proposal for clarification in Part 3. |
|
|
Status after Erlangen F2F: The change for valueRank in StructureField must be reverted. A clarification should be added to 8.7 BaseDataType. Matthias prepared the following two text proposals but they need further discussion: Option 1: Option 2: |
|
|
Here is the proposal for clarification in 8.7 BaseDataType A value based on a BaseDataTye is a container that can contain any DataType and any ValueRank. In places where the BaseDataType is used as part of a DataType and ValueRank definition, the ValueRank defines the ValueRank of the container. If the BaseDataType is used as DataType with ValueRank scalar in Variables, Event fields, Methode Arguments or Structure fields, the concrete instance of the value can be of any DataType with any ValueRank. If the ValueRank is array or multi-dimensional arrays, this applies to all elements in the array. |
|
|
Added suggested clarifying text to section 8.7. |
|
|
Agreed to text completely re-written in telecon. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-13 23:54 | Jim Luth | New Issue | |
| 2018-12-13 23:54 | Jim Luth | Status | new => assigned |
| 2018-12-13 23:54 | Jim Luth | Assigned To | => Jeff Harding |
| 2018-12-13 23:54 | Jim Luth | Issue generated from: 0004449 | |
| 2018-12-13 23:54 | Jim Luth | Relationship added | related to 0004449 |
| 2018-12-13 23:55 | Jim Luth | Project | 10000-005: Information Model => 10000-003: Address Space |
| 2018-12-13 23:55 | Jim Luth | Issue cloned: 0004535 | |
| 2018-12-13 23:55 | Jim Luth | Relationship added | related to 0004535 |
| 2018-12-14 17:38 | Jeff Harding | Note Added: 0009707 | |
| 2018-12-14 17:38 | Jeff Harding | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2018-12-14 17:38 | Jeff Harding | Fixed in Version | => 1.05 |
| 2018-12-14 17:38 | Jeff Harding | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2019-06-04 13:34 | Matthias Damm | Assigned To | Jeff Harding => Matthias Damm |
| 2019-06-04 13:34 | Matthias Damm | Status | resolved => feedback |
| 2019-06-04 13:34 | Matthias Damm | Resolution | fixed => reopened |
| 2019-06-04 13:34 | Matthias Damm | Note Added: 0010326 | |
| 2019-06-06 11:32 | Matthias Damm | Note Added: 0010365 | |
| 2019-06-06 11:33 | Matthias Damm | Assigned To | Matthias Damm => Jeff Harding |
| 2019-06-25 16:44 | Jim Luth | Status | feedback => assigned |
| 2020-02-29 20:37 | Matthias Damm | Note Added: 0011634 | |
| 2020-03-10 19:25 | Jeff Harding | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2020-03-10 19:25 | Jeff Harding | Resolution | reopened => fixed |
| 2020-03-10 19:25 | Jeff Harding | Note Added: 0011742 | |
| 2020-08-04 16:18 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
| 2020-08-04 16:18 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0012656 | |
| 2020-11-10 07:23 | Matthias Damm | Relationship added | related to 0006224 |