-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
Conversation
There are a number of integer values that do not need to be signed but was set at int32 in lieu of uint32 by mistake, this change addresses the discrepancy. We also elaborate on what is means when the attribute is not present. #106
// UCode. If the attribute is not present, there is no communication error | ||
optional uint32 commstatus = 8; | ||
// If the attribute is not present, there is no communication error | ||
optional UCode commstatus = 8; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FMPOV this should be changed according to the outcome of #77
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sophokles73 are you saying the documentation would need to change but not the field name and purpose right? We might add additional UCodes but it shouldn't change the signature
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, communication error is quite a generic term. IMHO it could be used to indicate both a problem at the infrastructure or the application level. This is what I suggested in #77. The only thing that we need to do is to define the semantics of commstatus accordingly in the spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There are a number of integer values that do not need to be signed but was set at int32 in lieu of uint32 by mistake, this change addresses the discrepancy. We also elaborate on what is means when the attribute is not present.
#106