An element/composite with minOccurs=0 at impl. schema doesn't override minOccurs=1 from trans. schema about staedi HOT 9 CLOSED

Hi @benisantos - this is somewhat expected behaviour since implementations typically should not override the standard, but rather fall within its guidelines. I think that aligns with the PNRGOV documentation, section 1.4, item 5:

If a composite or data element is defined as conditional in the IATA approved message but must be mandatory to complete a business function, the composite or data element will be indicated with a M for mandatory along with an asterisk (*). The M* will indicate the status differs from the PADIS Message Standard.

The last sentence is the key part, saying that the standard was different from M, i.e. C. I read that as saying that the M* means that the standard is minOccurs="0", but the implementation is minOccurs="1". Is it possible to put the more relaxed rule in the standard and constrain it in the implementation schema?

from staedi.

Thank you @MikeEdgar for the quick reply. Yes, it's possible to turn the strategy around, and it's like we solved until now :)

Other problem: after upgrade to 1.10.2 I'm getting NPEs in Validator class, line 740:

        // TODO: Implementation nodes must be incremented and validated (#88)
        if (this.isComposite()) {
            this.implComposite = implSeg.getChild(this.composite.getIndex()); // returns null
            this.implElement = this.implComposite.getChild(this.element.getIndex()); // line 740 => NPE
        } else if (this.element != null) {

I have to prepare a failing test case to report. Maybe is it related with TODO #88 ?

from staedi.

@benisantos - thanks for letting me know about the NPE. Can it be reproduced with the example you gave in the file attached to this issue?

from staedi.

No, the NPE is thrown in a more complex example, but I'm not authorized to share it :(
I'll try to locate the problem and prepare a small test case. Sorry!

from staedi.

Sure, no problem.

from staedi.

I've created a new issue (#106) about the NPE with a test case.

from staedi.

@benisantos - please let me know if anything else is needed with this issue.

from staedi.

It's ok. Close it when you want. Thank you.

from staedi.

Thanks @benisantos. Closing this - the solution was to use the less restrictive constraints in the standard. Please re-open in anything else arises with this one.

from staedi.