ETSI's Bug Tracker - Part 06: TTCN-3 Control Interface
View Issue Details

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0002571 | Part 06: TTCN-3 Control Interface | Technical | public | 05-12-2007 16:23 | 12-12-2008 15:43

Reporter | Thomas DeiÃŸ |
Assigned To | Ina Schieferdecker |
Priority | normal | Severity | major | Reproducibility | N/A
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version | v3.2.1 (published 2007-02) |
Target Version | v4.1.1 (published 2009-06) | Fixed in Version | v4.1.1 (published 2009-06) |
Clause Reference(s) | 9.2
Source (company - Author) |

Summary | 0002571: TCI operation in C mapping do not allow to leave out returnValues of replies

Description

In the C mapping the operation
void tciEnqueueReplyConnected
(TriPortId sender, TriComponentId receiver, TriSignatureId signature,
TciParameterListType parameterList, TciValue returnValue)
requires to provide a returnValue. But how to do this for signatures that do not have a return value? There has to be a way to express that there is no returnValue.
In IDL and Java, this can be handled by 'null'. But this does not seem to be possible in C.
Proposed solution (which needs discussion) is to add an operator to TciValue to set a value to be absent. There is already an operation to check whether a value is present.

Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files | CR_2571_TCI_operation_in_C_mapping_solution_01.doc (461,824) 13-03-2008 08:53 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=1376&type=bug

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
05-12-2007 16:23 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | New Issue |
05-12-2007 16:23 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | Status | new => assigned
05-12-2007 16:23 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | Assigned To | => Thomas DeiÃŸ
05-12-2007 16:23 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | Clause Reference(s) | => 9.2
05-12-2007 16:23 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | Source (company - Author) | =>
13-03-2008 08:53 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | File Added: CR_2571_TCI_operation_in_C_mapping_solution_01.doc |
13-03-2008 08:57 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | Note Added: 0005221 |
13-03-2008 08:57 | Thomas DeiÃŸ | Assigned To | Thomas DeiÃŸ => Ina Schieferdecker
09-05-2008 10:35 | Ina Schieferdecker | Target Version | => Edition 4.1.1 (not yet published)
16-10-2008 13:57 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | assigned => resolved
16-10-2008 13:57 | Ina Schieferdecker | Resolution | open => fixed
12-12-2008 15:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Note Added: 0007689 |
12-12-2008 15:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | resolved => closed
12-12-2008 15:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Fixed in Version | => Edition 4.1.1 (not yet published)

Notes

(0005221)
Thomas DeiÃŸ
13-03-2008 08:57

STF 349, Thomas, solution proposal.
Extend the value interface by two operations to explicitly set a value (of any type) to null and to check this.
Alternatives:
a) use omit instead of null (introduce an operation to set a value to omit), but this would mean to overload the meaning of omit.
b) introduce a new type NULL, but this can be considered as more intrusive than the two additional operations.

(0007689)
Ina Schieferdecker
12-12-2008 15:43

ok