You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Context: Had this issue while working with the library. Spotted through logs, that I sent
MeterValuesRequests without any MeterValues
MeterValues that did not contain any sampled Values
Looking at the OCPP 1.6 Standard Document it requires at least 1 Element for both MeterValues (P. 67 6. Messages -> 6.31 MeterValues) and SampledValues (P. 88 7.Types->7.33 MeterValue) to be a valid message.
Had this validation thrown these messages back in my face I would have spotted this error earlier.
Considering this is a potentially backwards breaking change I'm interested to know if this can be integrated to master or should rather be pushed against v2
Just in case: Pull request to master will be on it's way shortly
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
mmauksch
added a commit
to mmauksch/Java-OCA-OCPP
that referenced
this issue
Aug 16, 2023
Regarding backward compatibility, my main concern is avoiding unnecessary contractual interface changes, which will cause compilation failures. I see this as a behavioral change that makes the library more compliant with the spec and thereby more compatible with other implementations (which is the goal of the library). Yes, it will cause frustrations for implementations that do not comply with the specs, but at least it will fail fast.
Because of that, I don't see a problem with introducing this into Master. Are there any objections?
Context: Had this issue while working with the library. Spotted through logs, that I sent
Looking at the OCPP 1.6 Standard Document it requires at least 1 Element for both MeterValues (P. 67 6. Messages -> 6.31 MeterValues) and SampledValues (P. 88 7.Types->7.33 MeterValue) to be a valid message.
Had this validation thrown these messages back in my face I would have spotted this error earlier.
Considering this is a potentially backwards breaking change I'm interested to know if this can be integrated to master or should rather be pushed against v2
Just in case: Pull request to master will be on it's way shortly
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: