Reading again... I'm not so convinced... Sorry for the tons of emails, I
keep second guessing myself on this one. I'll look into it later today
if I get a chance.
On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 16:12 +0000, Keane, Erich wrote:
> AH! I see the bug now!
>
> array is of type OCRepPayload**!
>
> The array[i] should REALLY be (*array)[i];
>
> Thats why it looks like it is jumping around. Good catch! If you'd
> like to submit a patch, I'm sure it wouldn't have a problem getting
> accepted.
>
> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 16:05 +0000, Keane, Erich wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'm getting what you mean? Are you attempting to alter
> > behavior, or did you find a bug? If you found a bug, feel free to
> > submit a patch and add Jon A. Cruz to the review.
> >
> > As far as:
> > array[i] -> *array+i, I definitely prefer the previous, and I'm not
> > sure how they would be different...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:11 +0000, ??? wrote:
> > > Currently, Samsung implements the sequence type of
> > > AttributeValue(OCRepPayload ) in C like C++
> > > I wrote the sequence type of AttributeValue(OCRepPayload ) because C
> > > doesn't support vector.
> > >
> > > when I am using *.c from resoruce/csdk/stack/src because we cannot use
> > > OCpresentation.cpp for the thin project ,I have problem to exchaange
> > > "OCRepPayload array (OCRepPayload[] )" as a value.
> > >
> > > ie . the following format cannot be sent.
> > > . { "key1" : {
> > > {
> > > "nested key" : "key_01"
> > > value" : 100
> > > },
> > > {
> > > "nested key" : "key_02"
> > > "value" : 200
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > The based file i tested was
> > > resource/scdk/stack/smaples/linux/SimpleClientServer/ocserver.cpp,
> > > occlient.cpp.
> > > Even though they are .cpp, they call c functions intread of c++
> > > functions..
> > >
> > >
> > > while testing and debuging this issue, I found out that
> > > OCRepPayloadSetPropObjectArray of ocpayload.c has a pointer issue
> > > line 953 ; increasing i of array[i] in OCRepPayloadClone(array[i])
> > > jumps too much , so it cannot find the next OCRepPayload correct.
> > >
> > > If newArray[i] = OCRepPayloadClone(array[i]) is changed to newArray[i]
> > > = OCRepPayloadClone((*array +i) ) ;,it seems it works well as intended
> > >
> > >
> > > =============
> > >
> > > typedef struct LIGHTRESOURCE
> > > {
> > > OCResourceHandle handle;
> > > bool state;
> > > int power;
> > > char strArray[STRARRAYNUMBER][STRARRAYLENTH]; // array string
> > > int64_t intArray[INTARRAYNUMBER]; //
> > > array int
> > > OCRepPayload rcsArray[2];
> > > } LightResource;
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > {
> > > ......
> > > OCRepPayload dupobj[2];
> > > dimensions[0]=2; dimensions[1]=dimensions[2]=0;
> > > if(OCRepPayloadGetPropObjectArray(input, "rcsarray",
> > > (OCRepPayload ***)dupobj, dimensions)) {
> > >
> > > memcpy(currLightResource->rcsArray, dupobj,
> > > RCSTARRAYNUMBER*sizeof(OCRepPayload));
> > > }
> > >
> > > }
> > > // when I check currLightResource->rcsArray,, it has teh correct
> > > value.
> > > return getPayload(gResourceUri, currLightResource->power,
> > > currLightResource->state,
> > > currLightResource->strArray, currLightResource->intArray,
> > > currLightResource->rcsArray);
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OCRepPayload* getPayload(const char* uri, int64_t power, bool state, char
> > > strArray[][STRARRAYLENTH],
> > > int64_t* intArray, OCRepPayload* rcsArray)
> > > {
> > > ....
> > > size_t dimensions[MAX_REP_ARRAY_DEPTH]={2,0,0}; ;; just 2 times.
> > > OCRepPayloadSetPropObjectArray(payload, "rcsarray",( const
> > > OCRepPayload**) &rcsArray, dimensions ); ///
> > > ....
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Given that OCRepresentation.cpp doesn't use
> > > OCRepPayloadSetPropObjectArray and nobody uses OCRepPayload array
> > > (OCRepPayload[] ) yet, I think it is possble that it would rather be
> > > changed. however I am still believeing my testing way may need to get
> > > fixed..
> > >
> > >
> > > If you don't mind . Can I submit ocpayload.c directly? otherwise please
> > > find out the better way or make me correct..
> > >
> > >
> > > thank you
> > > Rami
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> iotivity-dev mailing list
> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
