Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 4, 2024. It is now read-only.

Fix UAttributes integer type #107

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 5, 2024
Merged

Fix UAttributes integer type #107

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 5, 2024

Conversation

stevenhartley
Copy link
Contributor

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

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
uprotocol/uattributes.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
uprotocol/uattributes.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
// 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;
Copy link
Contributor

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

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

Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@sophokles73 sophokles73 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@stevenhartley stevenhartley merged commit 1c75009 into main Mar 5, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants