[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17691730#comment-17691730
]
Mike McGann commented on DAFFODIL-2324:
---------------------------------------
Thanks for the help. I have updated the schema and tests. The TDML is:
https://github.com/mike-mcgann/daffodil/blob/daffodil-2324-choice-branch-v2/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/section15/choice_groups/ChoiceBranches.tdml
and the Scala file is:
https://github.com/mike-mcgann/daffodil/blob/daffodil-2324-choice-branch-v2/daffodil-test/src/test/scala/org/apache/daffodil/section15/choice_groups/TestChoiceBranches.scala
I think the tests reflect what the correct behavior is supposed to be and they
actually pass at the moment. Maybe this has already been changed or did I miss
something?
> Unparser choice branch selection not conformant to DFDL standard
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DAFFODIL-2324
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2324
> Project: Daffodil
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Back End
> Affects Versions: 2.5.0
> Reporter: Mike Beckerle
> Assignee: Mike McGann
> Priority: Major
>
> Erratum 5.60 of the DFDL spec clarifies how choice branch selection works.
> Our current schemas that use presence bits flags use a structure like this:
> {code:java}
> <choice>
> <sequence>
> <sequence dfdl:hiddenGroupRef="PI_true"/>
>
> <sequence>
> <element name="foo" minOccurs="0" ...../>
> <element name="bar" minOccurs="0" ..../>
> </sequence>
>
> <sequence dfdl:hiddenGroupRef="PI_false"/>
>
> </choice>{code}
> We depend on the fact that by default this chooses the PI_false hidden group
> when the incoming infoset event is not for a foo nor bar element.
> The DFDL spec says (with the Erratum/Clarification) that if we want PI_false
> to be chosen, then we must flip the order of these two choice branches.
> Daffodil is currently preferring the "more empty" of the two branches, and so
> seleting PI_false, rather than just taking the first possibly empty branch.
> Once we fix this behavior to conform to the spec., we will have to update
> DFDL schemas that use this behavior, and actually flip these branches.
> Based on that, we may want to put a compatibility flag into daffodil. Or
> perhaps a feature to generate a warning whenever there is more than one empty
> choice branch that *could* be selected, if the current functionality selects
> a default branch that is not the first possibly empty branch thena warning
> would be issued indicating that the branches should be reordered.
> The only schema I know of that is sensitive to this bug is mil-std-6017/VMF
> (and variants thereof).
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
