[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17716893#comment-17716893
]
Mike Beckerle commented on DAFFODIL-1217:
-----------------------------------------
I believe we should not fix this.
The DFDL work-group decided this issue is not an error. Sequential parser
behavior - it must try one possiblity then another, and if there is ambiguity
between the representation of an optional element and the alignment-fill region
that would preceded the next term, then so be it. Users must author their
schema so that these possibilities are decided in a specific order.
Reliably issuing a warning for this situation is challenging. One must consider
all contexts after an optional element which in the context of an element in a
shared group can be many.
I believe we should remove the offending test (Search for DFDL-1217) that is
currently commented out, but which insists on this warning in a hard case.
We should document in the code that this does NOT check for the situation where
an optional element is followed not by a subsequent sibling, but by the end of
an enclosing term, or multiple such ends.
> Alignment test not appropriately issuing warning for optional occurrence.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DAFFODIL-1217
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1217
> Project: Daffodil
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Diagnostics, Usability
> Reporter: Taylor Wise
> Priority: Major
> Labels: verified
> Fix For: 3.5.0
>
>
> The expected warning according to the test is the following:
> element.e is an optional element or a variable-occurrence array and its
> alignment (2) is not the same as element.one's alignment (1)
> No error or warning is received.
> edu.illinois.ncsa.daffodil.section12.aligned_data
> under the 'new' folder: test_alignmentOptionalElem03()
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
