[#QFJ-168] Add repeating group validation in messages - QuickFIX/J Jira

Details

Type: New Feature
Status: Closed
Priority: Default
Resolution: Fixed
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 1.3.2
Component/s: Engine
Labels:
None

Description

Seems that Message.validate() method skips the validation of repeating groups. it validates the # of groups, but not the fields inside the group itself.

Would be nice to have the groups be validated.

Issue Links

This issue is duplicated by:
QFJ-279	Fields in groups will not be checked.

This issue is related to:
QFJ-169	Message parsing fails on messages with invalid fields in repeating groups with non-obvious errors

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order

Hide

Permalink

Steve Bate added a comment - 10/May/07 4:48 AM

To clarify, you want to verify the repeating group field order. Is that right?

Show

Steve Bate added a comment - 10/May/07 4:48 AM To clarify, you want to verify the repeating group field order. Is that right?

Hide

Permalink

Toli Kuznets added a comment - 10/May/07 5:08 AM

Order, and maybe also to make sure that no invalid fields (something that doesn't belong in that particular message group) are present.

Show

Toli Kuznets added a comment - 10/May/07 5:08 AM Order, and maybe also to make sure that no invalid fields (something that doesn't belong in that particular message group) are present.

Hide

Permalink

Steve Bate added a comment - 10/May/07 5:11 AM

The invalid field issue is a bit tricky because as soon as we see a field that's not part of the group, we assume we are finished with the repeating groups and are starting to parse regular message fields again.

Show

Steve Bate added a comment - 10/May/07 5:11 AM The invalid field issue is a bit tricky because as soon as we see a field that's not part of the group, we assume we are finished with the repeating groups and are starting to parse regular message fields again.

Hide

Permalink

Toli Kuznets added a comment - 10/May/07 5:15 AM

I agree - that's why i linked it to 169, which is exactly what you are describing.
and why i figured that you (steve) would be better equipped to fix both of these since the parsing code is non-trivial

Show

Toli Kuznets added a comment - 10/May/07 5:15 AM I agree - that's why i linked it to 169, which is exactly what you are describing. and why i figured that you (steve) would be better equipped to fix both of these since the parsing code is non-trivial

People

Assignee:

Unassigned

Reporter:

Toli Kuznets

Vote (1)

Watch (1)

Dates

Created:

28/Apr/07 4:31 AM

Updated:

07/Aug/08 4:03 PM

Resolved:

03/Feb/08 8:22 AM