Hi Sebastian,
Yeah ... I thought that we last removed JUnit5 again as it was completely
buggy, but having now read some "Yeah till the latest releases it really
sucked, but now it works fine" I thought, why not allow it and we'll see how it
works. I wouldn't propose to migrate everything however. And yes ... the
parametrized tests were what made me try it out ;-)
Well the PR is a great idea ... let's see if I can add a PR inside our own repo
... never done that. But it will not prevent emails about it ;-)
I'll try that right away ...
By the way ... due to the changes, the Plc4XS7Protocol class seems to become a
lot simpler (And the lower levels shouldn't be affected).
Chris
Am 30.08.18, 10:53 schrieb "Sebastian Rühl"
<sebastian.ruehl...@googlemail.com.INVALID>:
Hi Chris,
[1] no need to supply a text to „ PlcInvalidFieldException“ as it only
requires you to supply the field name.
[2] using junit5 for parameterd tests seems to be a big relief :)
You should add a Pull-Request with WIP: (work in progress fix) so we can
add remarks like above inline as they are not really worth a mail on the
mailing list. What do you think.
Sebastian
> Am 30.08.2018 um 10:14 schrieb Christofer Dutz
<christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> especially @Julian ... could you please have a look at that I did with
the S7Field [1]?
> Also there is a unit-test that should allow adding more statements and
testing everything is working ok [2].
>
> Does this match your idea on [3]? Looking at your addresses, I think that
I might have not quite got it ... is there always a "D" as first part after the
"."? I always read it as "DB" like Data Block ... but seeing DX and SW makes me
wonder ... a quick check in my TIA shows me the address of a Boolean field in a
Data Block is "%DB1.DBX38.1" ... which one is correct?
>
> As we're no longer constructing the objects themselves in the API, I took
the liberty to simplify the field objects so we now only have one type for S7.
>
> Chris
>
> [1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/blob/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/plc4j/protocols/s7/src/main/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/s7/model/S7Field.java
> [2]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/blob/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/plc4j/protocols/s7/src/test/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/s7/model/S7FieldTests.java
> [3]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=89070222
>
>
> Am 28.08.18, 12:23 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just pushed changes to my API refactoring branch ... so far I only
adjusted the API module and added an example using the changed API.
> To have a look, please go to [1] ...
>
> General changes I implemented while working on the refactoring itself.
I did notice, that my current proposal "chris-2" did
>
> Having to inject the type conversion code would have made it necessary
to inject a converter which didn't feel right. So I changed the API to be
purely interface based.
> In order to be able to construct these objects I also added builders
for them.
>
> I asked a few people here what they think, and most liked the
simplicity and didn't have any WTF experiences (Which seems to be a good thing
as I did have to explain a lot with the current API)
>
> Quick Feedback highly appreciated as I will start implementing
DefaultPlcReadRequest & Co (in driver-base ... together with the builders)
after that I'll start migrating the drivers.
> Right now having a look a named example [1] would be a good start ...
> Second would be a deeper look into the API module [2].
>
> Would be a shame to waste that time and effort if you think the
changes suck (or are less than optimal as non-Germans would probably call them
;-) ) .
>
> Chris
>
> [1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/blob/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/examples/hello-plc4x/src/main/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/examples/helloplc4x/HelloPlc4x.java
> [2]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-plc4x/tree/feature/api-redesign-chris-c/plc4j/api
>
>
> Am 27.08.18, 09:57 schrieb "Christofer Dutz"
<christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
>
> Ups ... after reloading .. I just saw Julians Proposal pop up ...
haven't looked into that ...
> Will do that right away.
>
> Chris
>
> Am 25.08.18, 15:52 schrieb "Christofer Dutz"
<christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
>
> Hi Julian,
>
> version 2 should now be quite different ... I started
reworking my original proposal and decided to revert that an start a second
proposal.
> My first did address some parts needing cleaning up, but I
still wasn't quite satisfied with it. So I did another more radical refactoring.
>
> If you reload the second there should be a lot of differences.
>
> I just hit "save" a few minutes ago however ... but now I'm
quite happy with it. So please have another look at the second proposal.
>
> And please, maybe add your own proposal ... my versions are
just Brainstorming from my side.
>
> My favorite is currently "Chris' Proposal 2" ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
