0007459: the overwriting rules for attributes and the examples should be written more consistent

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

View Issue Details

Project

Category

View Status

Date Submitted

Last Update

0007459

Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language

Clarification

public

22-07-2016 14:44

12-12-2016 10:10

Reporter

Jacob Wieland - Spirent

Assigned To

Gyorgy Rethy

Priority

normal

Severity

minor

Reproducibility

have not tried

Status

closed

Resolution

fixed

Platform

OS Version

Product Version

v4.8.1 (published 2016-07)

Target Version

v4.9.1 (published 2017-05)

Fixed in Version

v4.9.1 (published 2017-05)

Clause Reference(s)

27.1.2

Source (company - Author)

Spirent - Jacob Wieland

Summary

0007459: the overwriting rules for attributes and the examples should be written more consistent

Description

There seems to be some confusion in the standard concerning the overwriting rules for attributes.

Especially the meaning of overriding the attribute in a lower scope is either not clear or it is not followed correctly in the EXAMPLE in 27.1.2.1 where MyType already has an encoding rule given by its surrounding module scope and no override is used to change that (though it is claimed to be changed by the parent encoding rule of the type MyPDUtwo in MyVariantsTwo.

The consensus in the STF is that the current intended (and probably implemented by most tools) meaning is this:

If a referenced type already has an encoding attached to it at the place of its definition (either by inheritance from its scope or direct annotation), that encoding 'wins' unless an encode attribute with override is inherited from the referencing definition's scope.

The text in the standard should be simplified/clarified in this regards and more (and correct) examples should be given to illustrate the different scenarios.

Still open questions are:

What is the meaning of encode/variant attributes on import statements?

Steps To Reproduce

Additional Information