ETSI's Bug Tracker - Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
View Issue Details

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0007688 | Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language | Technical | public | 27-06-2017 10:56 | 30-12-2017 18:34

Reporter | Tomas Urban |
Assigned To | Gyorgy Rethy |
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version | v4.9.1 (published 2017-05) |
Target Version | v4.10.1 (published 2018-05) | Fixed in Version | v4.10.1 (published 2018-05) |
Clause Reference(s) | 20.4
Source (company - Author) | Elvior

Summary | 0007688: The rule for loops inside interleave is too restrictive

Description

The rule for loops inside interleave (20.4.d) should restrict the use of loops only if the reception statement is inside the loop statement. The current rule leads to an absurd situation when the code in the first of the following examples is not allowed, but the second one is perfectly valid:
Example 1:
interleave {
[] pCO1.receive(mw_mySig1) {
for (var integer i := 0; i < 3; i := i + 1) { // not OK, the following receive is within the same statement block as the for loop
log("test");
}
PCO1.receive(mw_mySig3);
}
[] pCO2.receive(mw_mySig4) {
}
}
Example 2:
interleave {
[] pCO1.receive(mw_mySig1) {
{
for (var integer i := 0; i < 3; i := i + 1) { // OK, the following receive is NOT in same statement block as the for loop
log("test");
}
}
PCO1.receive(mw_mySig3);
}
[] pCO2.receive(mw_mySig4) {
}
}

Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files | 7688.odt (26,188) 24-07-2017 16:04 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=3649&type=bug 7688.doc (22,528) 26-07-2017 09:44 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=3662&type=bug

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
27-06-2017 10:56 | Tomas Urban | New Issue |
27-06-2017 11:43 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0014716 |
27-06-2017 11:46 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0014717 |
24-07-2017 14:24 | Jens Grabowski | Note Added: 0014738 |
24-07-2017 14:24 | Jens Grabowski | Assigned To | => Julien Deltour
24-07-2017 14:24 | Jens Grabowski | Status | new => assigned
24-07-2017 16:04 | Julien Deltour | File Added: 7688.odt |
24-07-2017 16:04 | Julien Deltour | Note Added: 0014742 |
24-07-2017 16:05 | Julien Deltour | Assigned To | Julien Deltour => Jacob Wieland - Spirent
24-07-2017 16:05 | Julien Deltour | Status | assigned => confirmed
26-07-2017 09:44 | Julien Deltour | File Added: 7688.doc |
26-07-2017 09:44 | Julien Deltour | Note Added: 0014776 |
26-07-2017 14:06 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0014782 |
26-07-2017 14:06 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Status | confirmed => resolved
26-07-2017 14:06 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Fixed in Version | => v4.9.1 (published 2017-05)
26-07-2017 14:06 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Resolution | open => fixed
26-07-2017 14:06 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Assigned To | Jacob Wieland - Spirent => Gyorgy Rethy
30-12-2017 18:34 | Gyorgy Rethy | Note Added: 0014963 |
30-12-2017 18:34 | Gyorgy Rethy | Status | resolved => closed
30-12-2017 18:34 | Gyorgy Rethy | Fixed in Version | v4.9.1 (published 2017-05) => v4.10.1 (published 2018-05)
30-12-2017 18:34 | Gyorgy Rethy | Target Version | => v4.10.1 (published 2018-05)

Notes

(0014716)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
27-06-2017 11:43

What part of the rule disallows the first example?

(0014717)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
27-06-2017 11:46

ah, I think this is a typo: the 'within' should be 'with'. At least that was the intention of the CR that introduced this.

(0014738)
Jens Grabowski
24-07-2017 14:24

STF discussion: Wording Problem.

(0014742)
Julien Deltour
24-07-2017 16:04

Please review.

(0014776)
Julien Deltour
26-07-2017 09:44

Add a new document with the correct format (doc file)

(0014782)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
26-07-2017 14:06

ok

(0014963)
Gyorgy Rethy
30-12-2017 18:34

Added to draft V4.9.2