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

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0006425 | Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language | Clarification | public | 19-02-2013 14:31 | 30-08-2013 10:34

Reporter | Tomas Urban |
Assigned To | Ina Schieferdecker |
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version |  |
Target Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) | Fixed in Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) |
Clause Reference(s) | 7.1.3
Source (company - Author) | Elvior

Summary | 0006425: Incomplete rule for compound expression comparison

Description

The following rule from the chapter 7.1.3 sets the requirements on operands which are both compound expressions, but doesn't specify the way how the comparison shall be performed:
If there is a compound expression on both sides of the comparison
operator, they shall both be value list notation expressions where the elements shall be of the same root type.
Proposal:
The rule should be amended with the following sentence: The compound expressions are then compared as if they were arrays of this root type.

Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files | CR4625.doc (166,912) 11-07-2013 13:04 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2828&type=bug

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
19-02-2013 14:31 | Tomas Urban | New Issue |
19-02-2013 14:31 | Tomas Urban | Clause Reference(s) | => 7.1.3
19-02-2013 14:31 | Tomas Urban | Source (company - Author) | => Elvior
08-07-2013 15:36 | Jens Grabowski | Project | TTCN-3 Change Requests => Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
08-07-2013 15:36 | Jens Grabowski | Status | new => assigned
08-07-2013 15:36 | Jens Grabowski | Assigned To | => Jacob Wieland - Spirent
08-07-2013 15:37 | Gyorgy Rethy | Note Added: 0011453 |
08-07-2013 18:14 | Gyorgy Rethy | Target Version | => v4.6.1 (published 2014-06)
09-07-2013 11:43 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0011458 |
09-07-2013 11:56 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0011461 |
11-07-2013 13:04 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | File Added: CR4625.doc |
11-07-2013 13:04 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0011544 |
11-07-2013 13:04 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Assigned To | Jacob Wieland - Spirent => Ina Schieferdecker
11-07-2013 13:04 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Status | assigned => confirmed
30-08-2013 10:33 | Ina Schieferdecker | Note Added: 0011653 |
30-08-2013 10:33 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | confirmed => resolved
30-08-2013 10:33 | Ina Schieferdecker | Resolution | open => fixed
30-08-2013 10:33 | Ina Schieferdecker | Fixed in Version | => v4.6.1 (published 2014-06)
30-08-2013 10:34 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | resolved => closed

Notes

(0011453)
Gyorgy Rethy
08-07-2013 15:37

First check what the current text specifies and what is missing.

(0011458)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
09-07-2013 11:43

I think this is covered by the general definition of value equality and the special cases of set of/record of types, so I think there is nothing to be done here.

(0011461)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
09-07-2013 11:56

As the general definition was removed, we somehow did not add one relevant condition to the record of/set of/array case, i.e. that the two values to be compared must have the same length to be equal (additional to the corresponding elements to be equal, of course).

(0011544)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
11-07-2013 13:04

added proposal, please check

(0011653)
Ina Schieferdecker
30-08-2013 10:33

As proposed.