Attention is currently required from: pespin.

View Change

1 comment:

• File library/L1CTL_Types.ttcn:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 859: template L1ctlMessage

    1- It really is a "template (present)", it cannot be omit.

    Yes, it's obvious that a complete template definition cannot be `omit` unless it's a direct and implicit assignment of `omit` (`template Foo bar := omit;`), and unless it's generated and returned by a function (`template Foo bar := f_gen_tr_Foo(...);`). So I would say it's redundant to say that it's `(present)` in this specific case.

    2- Then if you want to pass it as a param to another template which expects as param "template (present)", it won't match the expectancies. This probably generates warnings.

    I don't think this is the case, at least it's not with TITAN.
    The following code compiles without any warnings, and the testcase is passing:

    ```
    diff --git a/selftest/Selftest.ttcn b/selftest/Selftest.ttcn
    index 3d749253..5ee8a544 100644
    --- a/selftest/Selftest.ttcn
    +++ b/selftest/Selftest.ttcn
    @@ -94,6 +94,39 @@ testcase TC_ipa_fragment() runs on IPA_selftest_CT {
            setverdict(pass);
     }
     
    +private type record FooBar {
    +       integer foo,
    +       integer bar
    +};
    +
    +private type record FooBarZoo {
    +       FooBar foo_bar,
    +       integer zoo
    +};
    +
    +template FooBar tr_FooBar(template (present) integer foo,
    +                         template (present) integer bar) := {
    +       foo := foo,
    +       bar := bar
    +}
    +
    +template FooBarZoo tr_FooBarZoo(template (present) FooBar foo_bar,
    +                               template (present) integer zoo) := {
    +       foo_bar := foo_bar,
    +       zoo := zoo
    +}
    +
    +private type component dummy_CT { };
    +
    +testcase TC_foo_bar_zoo() runs on dummy_CT {
    +       var FooBarZoo fbz := { { 1, 2 }, 42 };
    +
    +       if (match(fbz, tr_FooBarZoo(tr_FooBar(?, ?), 42))) {
    +               setverdict(pass);
    +       } else {
    +               setverdict(fail);
    +       }
    +}
     
     control {
            execute( TC_ipa_fragment() );

    ```

    Note that I am passing `tr_FooBar(?, ?)`, which is defined without the `(present)` restriction, to `tr_FooBarZoo`, which does expect the first template parameter to be `(present)`.

    All in all, I don't think we should be forcing this during code review.

To view, visit change 36254. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.