Hi Julian, where should I send it once signed? Etienne
Le mar. 17 mars 2020 à 13:34, Julian Feinauer <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi, > > awesome work Etienne. > Just a quick note from me... did you already sign a ICLA with the Apache > Foundation? If not you should do that now, otherwise we can not accept this > big (and awesome!!) contribution. > > You can find more information here: https://www.apache.org/licenses/ > Direkt Link tot he ICLA: https://apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf > > Best > Julian > > Am 17.03.20, 13:30 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > Hi Chris, > I will do the PR. inside the fork there are also the changes I did to > the Camel component a couple of weeks ago (passing a List of queries and > returning a List of values). > > Etienne > On 2020/03/17 10:25:01, Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Etienne, > > > > I would suggest you create a Pull Request for your changes so we can > pull them in. > > We can then work on finalizing this together. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Am 17.03.20, 11:22 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > Hi Chris, > > the problem was the <parameter> tag was a parameter from COTP > and not propper to XML. Just removed it and it found the right parameters. > I pushed the test for Parser/Serializer for Read&Write Response/Request. > The only little issue I have is with the parsing from the Java Object to an > XML string (to compare). It seems like it still has some difficulties to > correctly parse a byte[]; for the rest everything should be OK. > > What needs to be done more on the driver? > > Etienne > > On 2020/03/17 08:00:49, Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > sorry for the late response ... couldn't read the image on my > phone, but on the computer it's fine. > > > > > > In your case the root element needs to be EipConnectionRequest > and not EipRequest. > > > > > > I have to admit I too haven't completely grasped all the > details of how Jackson parses and serializes stuff. > > > But usually I paste an empty xml representation (in your case > an empty EipPacket element) and put in the bytes. > > > Then I run the test and obviously it fails complaining about > what it parsed and that it looks different. > > > I manually examine if the xml is correct and replace the empty > element with the printed out verson. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 16.03.20, 17:20 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" < > [email protected]>: > > > > > > Hi again, > > > I started also to test serializer and parser. Here is the > problem I am facing: https://i.imgur.com/stmEqlm.png > > > On the left you see the testcase, on the right the code in > the ProtocolLogic. I don't know what I a m doing wrong, but from the log it > seems it does only look for the parameters I am giving? > > > > > > Etienne > > > On 2020/03/16 15:38:33, Etienne Robinet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > I did a similar test for reading a tag. As I never did > such tests before, I don't know if the method is correct, but the results > are similar to the ones I get running the same test for the s7. I also > pushed this to my fork. Tomorrow I will try to do some tests on the PLC to > see if I can perform fetching a lot of data (like I did on the s7) and if > the writing works. > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/16 13:47:53, Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > You probably pulled in a SNAPSHOT from our maven repo > ... if this is newer than yours, Maven usually pulls new versions the first > time you build on every day. ... yes this can be annoying ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > Am 16.03.20, 14:41 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" < > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > Ok I see, seems to be resolved once rebuilt. But > how does it come that it generates the getLengthInBits() before I updated > it? > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > On 2020/03/16 13:10:24, Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > it's there ... have a look: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/plc4x/blob/develop/plc4j/spi/src/main/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/spi/generation/Message.java > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that you checked out your fork. > That doesn't update automatically if someone pushes anything to our repo. > > > > > > You manually have to do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check "Keeping your fork up to date" on > https://plc4x.apache.org/developers/contributing.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope that helps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 16.03.20, 13:50 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" < > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > buy how do I stop it from generating the > error? He calls the getLengthInBits on an implmentation of Message so that > is where the error happens (also the @Override). I checked the Message > interface and there is no such metho, also checked the pojo-template and > couldn't find the method. I did not had that before when generating sources > (I think since I ran some tests on the PLC). > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > On 2020/03/16 12:46:48, Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well the getLengthInBytes is still there > ... it just calls the getLengthInBits and divides that by 8. > > > > > > > The reason was that with the Firmata > driver we first had a protocol where the getLengthInBytes returned 0 > because one datatype didn't have a full multiple of 8 as content. This made > getLengthInBytes return 0 instead of 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In general nothing should have changed as > the getLengthInBytes still exists. It's just that there is an additional > getLengthInBits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 16.03.20, 13:19 schrieb "Etienne > Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the advice I will try to > find a way for that. > > > > > > > I tried executing some tests but I > realisedI got an error on runtime. After looking at the generated source, > this is what I have: > > > > > > > https://i.imgur.com/LflQvpw.png > > > > > > > Why does the getLengthInBytes method > got swapped by getLengthInBits? The error comes that he is looking for the > gteLengthInBits() on a Message, and the @Override is also wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > On 2020/03/16 11:46:53, Christofer > Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well there must be some way to > distinguish the two ... perhaps using more than one field to discriminate > the types? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 16.03.20, 12:01 schrieb "Etienne > Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > I will have a look to build the > tests for the parser/serializer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have another question. In Cip > when data is too large and wont fit into a signle packet (>500 bytes), we > use fragmentedRequest. The problem I'm facing is: ReadFragmentedService and > UnconnectedRequest have the same service number 0x52. > > > > > > > > From the structure, the > UnconnectedRequest contains the fragmentedServiceRequest; but the responses > are at the same 'level' as the UnconnectedRequest. So I don't know for now > how to implement this and if we even need it (but I still find a good > option); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/16 10:35:34, > Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also suggest you have > a look at the unit-test framework I built for testing the parsers, > serializers and the model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plc4j/drivers/s7/src/test/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/s7/readwrite/S7DriverTestsuite.java > > > > > > > > > > plc4j/drivers/s7/src/test/resources/testsuite/S7DriverTestsuite.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm currently still working on > an integration test-suite that will test the protocol component using > pre-defined messages: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plc4j/drivers/s7/src/test/java/org/apache/plc4x/java/s7/readwrite/S7ParserSerializerTestsuite.java > > > > > > > > > > plc4j/drivers/s7/src/test/resources/testsuite/S7ParserSerializerTestsuite.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I wouldn't call that > production ready yet as I was distracted by other work and have to check > where I dropped the ball last time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 16.03.20, 11:28 schrieb > "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > this did also the trick > and looks far more clean, thanks for the help on that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am now working on the > writing, might have a look on connected messages afterwards. The fact is > that now I'm doing home office so it will be a bit trickier to test, but I > might get a solution in the following days. > > > > > > > > > Stay safe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/13 17:09:06, > Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just took the version > before your last commit and applied the pattern how you pass along the > arguments. > > > > > > > > > > Please have a look ... I > haven't compiled the spec, but it should work. As you can see, if you want > to use the > > > > > > > > > > arguments inside a > sub-type, you have to re-declare the variable (identical name and type) in > the sub-type. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > // > > > > > > > > > > // Licensed to the > Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one > > > > > > > > > > // or more contributor > license agreements. See the NOTICE file > > > > > > > > > > // distributed with > this work for additional information > > > > > > > > > > // regarding copyright > ownership. The ASF licenses this file > > > > > > > > > > // to you under the > Apache License, Version 2.0 (the > > > > > > > > > > // "License"); you may > not use this file except in compliance > > > > > > > > > > // with the License. > You may obtain a copy of the License at > > > > > > > > > > // > > > > > > > > > > // > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > > > > > > > > > > // > > > > > > > > > > // Unless required by > applicable law or agreed to in writing, > > > > > > > > > > // software distributed > under the License is distributed on an > > > > > > > > > > // "AS IS" BASIS, > WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY > > > > > > > > > > // KIND, either express > or implied. See the License for the > > > > > > > > > > // specific language > governing permissions and limitations > > > > > > > > > > // under the License. > > > > > > > > > > // > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > > > > > > > > ///EthernetIP Header of > size 24 > > > > > > > > > > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminatedType > 'EipPacket' > > > > > > > > > > [discriminator uint > 16 'command'] > > > > > > > > > > [implicit uint > 16 'len' 'lengthInBytes - 24'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint > 32 'sessionHandle'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint > 32 'status'] > > > > > > > > > > [array uint > 8 'senderContext' count '8'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint > 32 'options'] > > > > > > > > > > [typeSwitch 'command' > > > > > > > > > > ['0x0065' > EipConnectionRequest > > > > > > > > > > [const > uint 16 'protocolVersion' '0x01'] > > > > > > > > > > [const > uint 16 'flags' '0x00'] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ['0x0066' > EipDisconnectRequest > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ['0x006F' > CipRRData [uint 16 'len'] > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 32 '0x00000000'] > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 16 '0x0000'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > CipExchange 'exchange' ['len-6']] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > [type 'CipExchange' > [uint 16 'exchangeLen'] > > > > > > > > > > [const > uint 16 'itemCount' '0x0002'] //2 items > > > > > > > > > > [const > uint 32 'nullPtr' '0x0'] > //NullPointerAddress > > > > > > > > > > [const > uint 16 'UnconnectedData' '0x00B2'] //Connection Manager > > > > > > > > > > [implicit > uint 16 'size' 'lengthInBytes - 8 - 2'] > //remove fields above and routing > > > > > > > > > > [simple > CipService 'service' ['exchangeLen - 10'] ] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminatedType > 'CipService' [uint 16 'serviceLen'] > > > > > > > > > > [discriminator > uint 8 'service'] > > > > > > > > > > [typeSwitch 'service' > > > > > > > > > > ['0x4C' > CipReadRequest > > > > > > > > > > [simple > int 8 'RequestPathSize'] > > > > > > > > > > [array > int 8 'tag' length '(RequestPathSize*2)'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > uint 16 'elementNb'] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ['0xCC' > CipReadResponse [uint 16 'serviceLen'] > > > > > > > > > > [reserved > uint 8 '0x00'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > uint 8 'status'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > uint 8 'extStatus'] > > > > > > > > > > [enum > CIPDataTypeCode 'dataType'] > > > > > > > > > > [array > int 8 'data' length 'serviceLen-6'] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ['0x0A' > MultipleServiceRequest [uint 16 'serviceLen'] > > > > > > > > > > [const > int 8 'RequestPathSize' '0x02'] > > > > > > > > > > [const > uint 32 'RequestPath' '0x01240220'] //Logical Segment: > Class(0x20) 0x02, Instance(0x24) 01 (Message Router) > > > > > > > > > > [simple > Services 'data' ['serviceLen - 6 ']] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ['0x8A' > MultipleServiceResponse [uint 16 'serviceLen'] > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x0'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > uint 8 'status'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > uint 8 'extStatus'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > Services 'data' ['serviceLen - 4']] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ['0x0052' > CipUnconnectedRequest > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x02'] > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x20'] // setRequestPathLogicalClassSegment > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x06'] // set request class path > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x24'] // setRequestPathLogicalInstanceSegment > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x01'] // setRequestPathInstance > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 16 '0x9D05'] //Timeout 5s > > > > > > > > > > > [implicit uint 16 'messageSize' 'lengthInBytes - 10 - 4'] > //substract above and routing > > > > > > > > > > [simple > CipService 'service'] > > > > > > > > > > [const > uint 16 'route' '0x0001'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > int 8 'backPlane'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple > int 8 'slot'] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [type 'Services' > [uint 16 'servicesLen'] > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 16 > 'serviceNb'] > > > > > > > > > > [array uint > 16 'offsets' count 'serviceNb'] > > > > > > > > > > [array CipService > 'services' count 'serviceNb' ['servicesLen/serviceNb'] ] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [enum uint 16 > 'CIPDataTypeCode' [uint 8 'size'] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C1' BOOL > ['1']] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00CA' REAL > ['4']] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C4' DINT > ['4']] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C3' INT > ['2']] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C2' SINT > ['1']] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X02A0' > STRUCTURED ['88']] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X02A0' STRING > ['88']] > > > > > > > > > > ['0X02A0' > STRING36 ['40']] > > > > > > > > > > ['-1' UNKNOWN > ['-1']] > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope that helps, > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 13.03.20, 17:09 > schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > sorry for > double-posting, but I found the fix. For me the code does not look that > 'sexy' now but it works. I do not know if I can make it better but for now > I will stick to this :) I pushed it to the 'eip' branch of my fork. > > > > > > > > > > Have a nice weekend, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/13 > 14:48:35, Etienne Robinet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the > advice. I am trying to pass the length down the subclasses, but I'm stuck. > This does not work as it seems: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://i.imgur.com/77bbdBN.png CipRRData does not know what 'len' is nor > its value as it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to > inspire mysefl from the CotpPayload, but unfortunately, the first byte of > the whole packet is a discriminator (command). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/13 > 13:52:16, Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you can > solve your problem in two ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > In all you need > to pass down the length of the packet in total from the root type (which > knows the length). > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) You keep on > just reading bytes and parse in the protocol logic class (Like in the S7 > driver or KNX) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) You directly > parse PlcValues (using "dataIo" types) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer > option 2 but 1 is simpler. The reason I'm doing 1) in S7 and KNX is that I > need to know the type from the request to decode in the S7 case and in the > KNX case I need to know the type from an external source in order to decode > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 13.03.20, > 14:45 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes this is > exactly what I need. If I get the remaining bytes, I can know the element > numbers as I have their type! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On > 2020/03/13 13:40:09, Julian Feinauer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there ist > he possibility to get the remaining size oft he bytes of the message. Does > that help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise > I misread your question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am > 13.03.20, 14:37 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > Julian, > > > > > > > > > > > > > so how > should I declare this field in the mspec if I can not get its size? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank > you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On > 2020/03/13 13:35:52, Julian Feinauer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first, Congratulations on your Progress! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To > you question: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > is a common issue with many protocols. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We > solve that in the protocol layer by keeping the request until we get the > response (see for Example how we did it for S7). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So > you cannot solve that in mpsec at compile time but have to decode the > byte[] you get with the Information from the Request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope > that helps! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am > 13.03.20, 14:02 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have yet another question. When sending a request for multiple elements > (let's say 10 elements of an array), you get a response from the PLC with > all the data at the end of the packet. The problem is, in the request there > is the number of elements we want, but not in the response. So so the > protocol knows how many elements there are in the response packet, but not > the packet itself. This is quite a problem as for the parse, we need to > know the length of the 'data' array containing the response data (for now > it was only depending on the type, but I would need type*elements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tested a bit by modifying the generated IO, and 1 way to do it is to get > the remaining bytes and divide this by the datatype size. I just wanted to > ask if someone would know how to declare this in the mspec, as I don't want > to touch at the template. I also thought about having an attribute on the > response, but I don't know how to put an attribute that won't get > parsed/serialized. Hope I am clear enough, but this is a code sample that > worked (modifying generated sources): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://i.imgur.com/Xm6DxEZ.png (notice the error but this code works if > I write it myself) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here is how I put it in the mspec: https://i.imgur.com/Ye1Kl9q.png > (you can see the number of element is not present) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any help is welcome of course! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/12 21:34:12, Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's amazing news :-) ... congratulations :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also had a look at your mspec and I think you have done a great job with > that. I wasn't quite sure about the relation between CipRRData and > CipExchange, but your solution looks rock-solid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And now reading that you even managed to get something working, that > makes me very happy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow I'll be a little consumed with signing the contract with the > KNX foundation but I'll try to have a look at your fork. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 12.03.20, 17:50 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again a productive day, I pushed to my branch and the driver support > reading, multiple reading and the camel component works (in karaf) and > takes a List of strings. Tested it on a different PLC and it also worked! > Next I'm going to implement the array readings and then maybe writing > (tests needs to be done too). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/12 07:18:32, Etienne Robinet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes that's what I thought so I managed to work around like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/etiennerobinet/plc4x/blob/eip/protocols/eip/src/main/resources/protocols/eip/eip.mspec > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this works for reading! I managed to make a quick test and > read via the tag name. Now my question is: can I create sub-types that are > also discriminated with sub-subtypes? That would allow to create the > ReadRequest only, as the fields before are mainly constant/implicit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/11 20:24:14, Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are defining the type CipRRData twice ... once as one of the > sub-types of EipPacket and once as a dedicated discriminated type. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: I have no idea why I didn't finish writing this email and I > just noticed when closing everything down ... sorry for the late reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 11.03.20, 09:30 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a quick question. I've been working on the CIP > encapsulation but hitting a problem with the mspec design. Here is the > error I am facing: https://i.imgur.com/iCfh59n.png > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem here is that this CipRRData should also be of > type EipPacket. When the command of an EipPacket is '0x66' this means > SendRRData (for Read/Write and Request/Response so I have to discriminate > it on the sub level). The problem is that after generation, CipRRData > implements Message but does not extend EipPacket. How should I do it? Here > is the mspec: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminatedType 'EipPacket' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminator uint 16 'command'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [implicit uint 16 'len' 'lengthInBytes - 24'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 32 'sessionHandle'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 32 'status'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [array uint 8 'senderContext' count '8'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 32 'options'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [typeSwitch 'command' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0x0065' EipConnectionRequest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [const uint 16 'protocolVersion' > '0x01'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [const uint 16 'flags' > '0x00'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0x0066' EipDisconnectRequest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0x006F' CipRRData > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [const uint 32 'EipInterface' > '0x00000000'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [const uint 8 'timeout' '0x0000'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminatedType 'CipRRData' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 8 'itemNb'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [array CipItem 'items' length 'itemNb'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminator uint 8 'CipService'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [typeSwitch 'CipService' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0x52' CipUnconnectedRequest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple CommandData 'data'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0xCC' CipReadResponse > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x0000'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 8 'status'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 8 'extStatus'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 8 'dataType'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [array uint 8 'data' length > 'dataType'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [type 'CipItem' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 16 'typeID'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 16 'size'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminatedType 'CommandData' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x02'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x20'] // > setRequestPathLogicalClassSegment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x06'] // set request > class path > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x24'] // > setRequestPathLogicalInstanceSegment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x01'] // > setRequestPathInstance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [discriminator uint 8 'CipService'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [typeSwitch 'CipService' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0x4C' CipReadRequest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [simple uint 8 'RequestPathSize'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 8 '0x91'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [array uint 8 'tag' length > '(RequestPathSize*2) - 1'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [reserved uint 16 '0x0001'] //itemCount > set to 1 for now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [enum int 16 'CIPDataTypeCode' [uint 8 'size'] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C1' BOOL ['1']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00CA' REAL ['4']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C4' DINT ['4']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C3' INT ['2']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X00C2' SINT ['1']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X02A0' STRUCTURED ['88']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X02A0' STRING ['88']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['0X02A0' STRING36 ['40']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ['-1' UNKNOWN ['-1']] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for any help! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/10 15:18:47, Etienne Robinet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've managed to implement the EIP Session > Register/Unregister (used for connected message which is best for high > frequency fetching). I will push it to my branch and create a document > explaining my steps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next I want to do was to to the CIP encapsulation part for > accessing tag by their name. The thing is, CIP is (from what I heard) > proper to Allen Bradley. Should I leave it in the EIP driver or modify and > adapt the current AB driver later on? For now I will continue on eip. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/03/10 14:41:42, Cesar Garcia < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can document the process step by step, you will > surely find observation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > points. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am working with the handwritten S7 driver, but in the > future I would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support the team in migrate to mspec, so the experience > you will gain with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Etheret / IP is very important. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El mar., 10 mar. 2020 a las 9:17, Christofer Dutz (< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>) escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Etienne, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would strongly suggest you install the Antlr plugn > for the IDE you use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that ANTLR seems to gobble up a lot of > errors and tries to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be smart in a lot of cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whenever I have problems like this I use the ANTLR > visual parser to parse > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a block of mspec (one type at a time) and try to > narrow down the cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 10.03.20, 13:31 schrieb "Etienne Robinet" < > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been struggling with implementing the EIP > driver. I started > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writing the mspec after creating both a module for the > protocol and the one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from the driver. I copied and adapted the pom(s) from > the AB-ETH but only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the enum is generated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a link to the forked branch: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/etiennerobinet/plc4x/tree/eip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been studying the EIP/CIP protocol and now I > am confident what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the packages should contain but I can not figure out > how to generate this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the templates. Am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Etienne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *CEOS Automatización, C.A.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *GALPON SERVICIO INDUSTRIALES Y NAVALES FA, C.A.,* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *PISO 1, OFICINA 2, AV. RAUL LEONI, SECTOR GUAMACHITO,* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *FRENTE A LA ASOCIACION DE GANADEROS,BARCELONA,EDO. > ANZOATEGUI* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ing. César García* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Cel: 0416-681.03.99* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Cel: 0414-760.98.95* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Hotline Técnica SIEMENS: 0800 1005080* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
