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

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0005987 | Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language | Clarification | public | 17-12-2011 06:25 | 11-10-2013 11:51

Reporter | Andras Kovacs |
Assigned To | Ina Schieferdecker |
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | N/A
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version | v4.3.1 (published 2011-06) |
Target Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) | Fixed in Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) |
Clause Reference(s) | Core language / section 27.1
Source (company - Author) | STF433

Summary | 0005987: Unclarity of handling nested override directives in section 27
Description | It is not clear from the definition of override directive (in section 27.1) which override statement would take precedence in case of nested statements. The suggested definition would be to define the innermost override statement to take precedence.
Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files | CR5987_resolution_v1.doc (75,264) 10-07-2013 15:38 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2814&type=bug CR5987_resolution_v2.doc (76,288) 28-08-2013 11:08 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2867&type=bug

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
17-12-2011 06:25 | Andras Kovacs | New Issue |
17-12-2011 06:25 | Andras Kovacs | Clause Reference(s) | => Core language / section 27.1
17-12-2011 06:25 | Andras Kovacs | Source (company - Author) | => STF433
10-07-2012 18:21 | Gyorgy Rethy | Note Added: 0010775 |
10-07-2012 18:21 | Gyorgy Rethy | Assigned To | => Jens Grabowski
10-07-2012 18:21 | Gyorgy Rethy | Status | new => assigned
10-07-2012 18:21 | Gyorgy Rethy | Target Version | => Edition 4.5.1
11-07-2012 12:23 | Jens Grabowski | Note Added: 0010835 |
09-08-2012 15:14 | Jens Grabowski | Note Added: 0011010 |
11-12-2012 10:18 | Jens Grabowski | Note Added: 0011214 |
11-12-2012 10:34 | Jens Grabowski | Note Added: 0011216 |
11-12-2012 10:35 | Jens Grabowski | Assigned To | Jens Grabowski => Gyorgy Rethy
14-05-2013 15:20 | Gyorgy Rethy | Target Version | Edition 4.5.1 => v4.7.1 (published 2015-06)
10-07-2013 15:38 | Gyorgy Rethy | File Added: CR5987_resolution_v1.doc |
10-07-2013 15:42 | Gyorgy Rethy | Note Added: 0011510 |
10-07-2013 15:42 | Gyorgy Rethy | Note Edited: 0011510 |
10-07-2013 15:42 | Gyorgy Rethy | Assigned To | Gyorgy Rethy => Jens Grabowski
28-08-2013 11:08 | Jens Grabowski | File Added: CR5987_resolution_v2.doc |
28-08-2013 11:09 | Jens Grabowski | Note Added: 0011621 |
28-08-2013 11:09 | Jens Grabowski | Status | assigned => resolved
28-08-2013 11:09 | Jens Grabowski | Resolution | open => fixed
28-08-2013 11:10 | Jens Grabowski | Status | resolved => feedback
28-08-2013 11:10 | Jens Grabowski | Resolution | fixed => reopened
28-08-2013 11:12 | Jens Grabowski | Assigned To | Jens Grabowski => Ina Schieferdecker
28-08-2013 11:12 | Jens Grabowski | Status | feedback => resolved
11-10-2013 11:51 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | resolved => closed
11-10-2013 11:51 | Ina Schieferdecker | Note Added: 0011767 |
11-10-2013 11:51 | Ina Schieferdecker | Resolution | reopened => fixed
11-10-2013 11:51 | Ina Schieferdecker | Fixed in Version | => v4.6.1 (published 2014-06)

Notes

(0010775)
Gyorgy Rethy
10-07-2012 18:21

STF discussion 2012-07-10: to be checked

(0010835)
Jens Grabowski
11-07-2012 12:23

The standard states in 27.1: "The with statement can be applied to modules, global module definitions and to local definitions in control, test cases, functions, altsteps, statement blocks, and in component type definitions." I don't see the relation to nested statements. I will ask Andras for an example.

(0011010)
Jens Grabowski
09-08-2012 15:14

Email to Andras resent 09.08.12. CR will be closed at the end of the year if no answer is received.

(0011214)
Jens Grabowski
11-12-2012 10:18

Answer from Andras:
Am 13.08.2012 11:03, schrieb Andras Kovacs:
> Dear Jens,
> I am sorry for being so slow with this answer!
> It has been some time ago, when dealt with this issue, would have been better to give an example in the CR. I remember the issue being the question of what happens when we have for example the following attribute at the module level:
> with { optional override "explicit omit"}
> And the following attribute at the testcase level:
> with { optional override "implicit omit"}
>
> Which override attribute takes precedence in that case? This CR suggests to define a clear rule for such hierarchy.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andras Kovacs
>
>

(0011216)
Jens Grabowski
11-12-2012 10:34

Proposal for resolution:
Add the following sentence on page 211, Section "27.1.2 Overwriting rules for attributes" immediately after the sentence "An attribute definition in a lower scope can be overwritten in a higher scope by using the override directive":
"In case of nested override directives, the override directive of the highest scope shall take precedence."
Assigned to GyÃ¶rgy for crosschecking.

(0011510)
Gyorgy Rethy
10-07-2013 15:42

I propose to add the sentence at the end of the clause with some examples. This make the claus's structure more clear: overwriting due to scoping, overriding "simple" rules due to override, relation between override attributes. See proposed text in CR5987_resolution_v1.doc. Do you agree? Pls. review.

(0011621)
Jens Grabowski
28-08-2013 11:09

OK, only a small typo corrected in v2 of resolution. Status changed to resolved, assigned to Ina for implementation.

(0011767)
Ina Schieferdecker
11-10-2013 11:51

as proposed