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
PR merged.
As linked, Matteo will further extend the TCK Validator runner with an XPath to check for BKM variable's typeRef not being a ~literal builtin (as a BKM variable is meant to be a function, per previous convergence/agreements).
per discussion on the PR thread we also had a representative of the Vendor in the meeting and confirmed per PR thread will rename to include vendor-designation.
There is no urgency of this change.
We also highlighted #460 and #459 is best each Vendor act on those PRs or state approved and I will do it.
we discussed this on a general PoV in the group.
There are mainly 2 generic topics.
restriction in a hierarchy of ItemDefinition should impose a further restriction, not ~the deepest allowedValues wins.
This is captured in the discussion here: assertions on value domain compliance #422 (review)
we will check this on DMN Specification provision, and check this with the RTF in due time.
I think the group appreciates the intent of the test, but as captured in the assertions on value domain compliance #422 (review) if an Expression of a Decision defines the typeRef, also the Decision variable should do it too. But this would not be the same kind of test, in the way we understood it. So as mentioned in link, we need to check on which DMN Specification foundation a typeRef defined on an expression, will be used for type conformance check (we agree the XML metamodel provides it, we agree the metamodel description mentions what is the intent, but we need to check in chapter 10 how to relate to it).
It would be best to give the group member time to check this with the RTF, before going forward; eventually we can comment out the tests which leverage these two points 1 and 2.
next meeting
Next meeting likely will be Thu, Sept 9.
Will follow usual invitation from Circleweaver in due time.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
we have synced on a number of PRs, and general topics.
#456 (comment)
PR merged.
#457 (comment)
PR merged.
As linked, Matteo will further extend the TCK Validator runner with an XPath to check for BKM variable's typeRef not being a ~literal builtin (as a BKM variable is meant to be a function, per previous convergence/agreements).
#458 (comment)
per discussion on the PR thread we also had a representative of the Vendor in the meeting and confirmed per PR thread will rename to include vendor-designation.
There is no urgency of this change.
We also highlighted #460 and #459 is best each Vendor act on those PRs or state approved and I will do it.
#422
we discussed this on a general PoV in the group.
There are mainly 2 generic topics.
restriction in a hierarchy of ItemDefinition should impose a further restriction, not ~the deepest allowedValues wins.
This is captured in the discussion here: assertions on value domain compliance #422 (review)
we will check this on DMN Specification provision, and check this with the RTF in due time.
I think the group appreciates the intent of the test, but as captured in the assertions on value domain compliance #422 (review) if an Expression of a Decision defines the typeRef, also the Decision variable should do it too. But this would not be the same kind of test, in the way we understood it. So as mentioned in link, we need to check on which DMN Specification foundation a typeRef defined on an expression, will be used for type conformance check (we agree the XML metamodel provides it, we agree the metamodel description mentions what is the intent, but we need to check in chapter 10 how to relate to it).
It would be best to give the group member time to check this with the RTF, before going forward; eventually we can comment out the tests which leverage these two points 1 and 2.
next meeting
Next meeting likely will be Thu, Sept 9.
Will follow usual invitation from Circleweaver in due time.
/cc @opatrascoiu @StrayAlien @falko @vpellegrino
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions