Attention is currently required from: pespin.

fixeria has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37645?usp=email )

Change subject: library/GTPv1U_Templates: Mark parameters as templates ......................................................................

Patch Set 1: Code-Review-1

(4 comments)

File library/GTPv1U_Templates.ttcn:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37645/comment/b0c7daf0_07e30... PS1, Line 58: template (value) What do we win by doing so? IMO, template parameters are useful for complex parameters, like records and unions, as you can init some/all of their fields in a template. But for parameters of simple types like OCT or INT, I don't really see the benefits of doing so. One thing I can think of is allowing to pass multiple values, like `msg_type := (MSGT_FOO, MSGT_BAR)`, but this makes no sense for a send template.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37645/comment/c830ba91_7ea05... PS1, Line 61: template (value) GTPU_IEs ies It's fine making this one a template param, so that you can pass templates like `ts_UEchoReqPDU` directly without having to use `valueof()`. But I am not sure about the other params.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37645/comment/8329c7bf_aa2c2... PS1, Line 122: valueof(ts_UEchoReqPDU ... so you turned this param into a template, but still doing unnecessary `valueof()`.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37645/comment/135ff58d_77198... PS1, Line 145: valueof(ip_addr) ... see, you expect a value here anyway, so why adding additional transformations to a template and then back to a value?