Now I am very curious... A json file conversion should does not have to be binary the same cbor wise... If that is an issue, then we have an serious implementation issue.
Kind Regards, Wouter -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Coval Sent: 05 March 2018 16:52 To: iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] .dat files not being .gitignored? On 03/05/2018 03:31 PM, Wouter van der Beek (wovander) wrote: > Sounds like an issue.. to be reported ;) > The python works great for creating the introspection files as part of the > DeviceBuilder tool chain and works fine with the CTT. > I have tried to use exactly the same sequence for the security files, but I > never got that to work... not sure what is different and why it should be > different. > Python tool will be welcome for sure, but I will not recommend to use it. Relying on 2 implementations to produce .dat files is subject to inconstancies we already faced this in the past (and still today), when all .dat files were not updated after changes. Also something which is bugging me is that some dats files are modified once tests are run, and spotted as different, maybe we should avoid to touch .dat files in tree after they generation. Regards -- mailto:philippe.co...@osg.samsung.com gpg:0x467094BC https://blogs.s-osg.org/author/pcoval/ _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
