While pursuing DAFFODIL-2395<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2395>, I experimented with SpecifiedLengthParsers.scala, specifically the check isDefinedForLength. I added logic to only do this check for non-complex types so we wouldn’t look ahead across types that might be so large that it breaks our backtracking.
This immediately caused problems with the Assert.invariant(isLimitOk). It appears that isLimitOk can now be false when the parser backtracks on points of uncertainty. As an attempted fix, I replaced the assert with a processing error for complexTypes. This causes some 50 tests to fail with new parse error messages, presumably because we aren’t backtracking in the same way as before. This seems like it might require some additional thought, so I wanted to get more eyes on the problem. Does the above solution make sense, or do these results spark any new opinions? [A picture containing object, clock Description automatically generated] Ian Carlson | Software Engineer [Owl Cyber Defense] W icarl...@owlcyberdefense.com<https://owlcyberdefense.com/> Connect with us! Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/owlcyberdefense/> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/owlcyberdefense/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/owlcyberdefense> [Find us at our next event. Click Here.]<https://owlcyberdefense.com/resources/events/?utm_source=owl-cyber-defense&utm_medium=email&utm_content=banner&utm_campaign=2020-events> The information contained in this transmission is for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately
