ETSI's Bug Tracker - Part 09: Using XML with TTCN-3
View Issue Details

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0007188 | Part 09: Using XML with TTCN-3 | Technical | public | 02-10-2015 09:36 | 18-07-2016 11:44

Reporter | Tomas Urban |
Assigned To |  |
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried
Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version | v4.6.1 (published 2015-06) |
Target Version | v4.8.1 (published 2017-05) | Fixed in Version |  |
Clause Reference(s) | 5, Annex A
For STF discussion |
Source (company - Author) | STF 487

Summary | 0007188: Presence of the XSD module

Description

The current specification doesn't define precisely the rules for presence of the XSD module and this gives space for different interpretations. The following issues should be considered:
1. Module presence: Is the module automatically added/generated only if there are XML schemas in the test suite, i.e. if implicit or explicit conversion takes place (e.g. some rules on explicit mapping from the section 5 point in that direction)? Or is it automatically added even in situations when no schema is present, but some of the TTCN-3 explicitly import it?
2. What should happen if there's user-defined XSD module in the test suite (especially in case when it is different from the one that is defined in the annex A)?

Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files |

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
02-10-2015 09:36 | Tomas Urban | New Issue |
02-10-2015 14:03 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0013347 |
03-11-2015 15:31 | Gyorgy Rethy | Note Added: 0013477 |
03-11-2015 15:31 | Gyorgy Rethy | Assigned To | => Tomas Urban
03-11-2015 15:31 | Gyorgy Rethy | Status | new => feedback
06-01-2016 09:23 | Gyorgy Rethy | Target Version | => v4.8.1 (published 2017-05)
18-07-2016 11:43 | Tomas Urban | Note Added: 0013978 |
18-07-2016 11:44 | Tomas Urban | Note Added: 0013979 |
18-07-2016 11:44 | Tomas Urban | Status | feedback => closed
18-07-2016 11:44 | Tomas Urban | Assigned To | Tomas Urban =>
18-07-2016 11:44 | Tomas Urban | Resolution | open => won't fix

Notes

(0013347)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
02-10-2015 14:03

in my opinion this is more of a tool issue than a standard issue
in principle the standard defines the meaning of the different types by mapping them to types in the XSD module. For the explicit mapping, the XSD module needs to exist for that, for the implicit mapping, this is not really necessary, as long as the types generated are type compatible with the types from the XSD module. Of course, if the user wants to use some types from the module directly, either the tool has to provide that or the user has to provide the module himself. In case the user provides a module of the same name with a different content for those types that are defined in the standard, this should probably be considered erroneous in the explicit-mapping case. For implicit, it doesn't matter much.

(0013477)
Gyorgy Rethy
03-11-2015 15:31

STF discussion: The questions are relavant for explicit mapping only. The oppinion is that in this case these are tooling issues, not to be defined by the language specification.

(0013978)
Tomas Urban
18-07-2016 11:43

Since test suite handling is generally a tool issue, I accept the decision of the STF.

(0013979)
Tomas Urban
18-07-2016 11:44

Closing as won't fix.