Bringing the thought of the other discussion here too ... How about adding name-value paris to the type declarations as well as to the fields? Then the "try" flag could be replaced with a name-value pair or even a name=expression pair ... sort of like "parse-behaviour=try" or something similar. Then we wouldn't be starting to add all sorts of "flags".
Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sebastian Rühl <sru...@apache.org> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. September 2021 15:44 An: dev@plc4x.apache.org Betreff: Re: Changes on mspec: parameterized type refs, assert, try, const Hey Lukaz, the optional after the try is just a coincidence from the bac spec. Like it say the low should always appear with a high and if the id is set then no name should not be set. But in itself the try is self sufficient and behaves indeed like an optional without an expression. Other than that you can always group dependended fields as a complex... but let's see how this evolves. These blocks could be indeed come in handy as an option to define things... - Sebastian On 2021/09/25 20:23:08, Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> wrote: > Hey Sebastian, > Not that far ago we had a similar discussion. Yet then it was mainly > about optionals. See "[DISCUSS] Change the way we use "optional". > > Back then we did not do any changes to mspec, just ranted about > possible approach to make better use of optional fields. > I remember that current mspec/code can't for example handle ie. a > bacnet whois without all fields. Looking at your example I guess you > try to solve that puzzle. > > I don't have any strong feelings here, but why not using optional > field with additional "reset" flag? > To me what rings a bell in your mail is an assumption that try is > always followed by optional field. This tells me that 'try' should > rather be a block than a field. By this way we will be able to pair > these visually as well as handle situation when there is one try > statement but multiple optional fields. > > Best, > Łukasz > > > On 24.09.2021 23:52, Sebastian Rühl wrote: > > Hi together, > > > > I have some exciting changes in the pipeline regarding the mspec: > > > > 1. parameters on type refs > > with that change it is now possible to target a discriminated child in > > advance. > > 2. assert keyword > > with that change it is possible to throw a > > ParserAssertException (in java, or errors in other languages). This field > > is similar to a const but instead of a ParseException a > > ParserAssertException is thrown. In contrast to a const the check > > expression can be dynamic (e.g. virtual fields now working on develop) 3. > > try keyword to prefix fields: > > with that change it is possible to try to parse some content and in > > case an assert fails it resets the buffer. > > 4. const is now extended to type reference > > this change allows enums to be used as const values. > > > > All theses changes allow to encapsulate behavior in complex types so you > > don't need to DRY. > > > > Here is a example working with bacnet: > > ['0x07' BACnetUnconfirmedServiceRequestWhoHas > > [try simple BACnetComplexTagUnsignedInteger ['0', > > 'BACnetDataType.UNSIGNED_INTEGER' ] 'deviceInstanceRangeLowLimit' ] > > [optional BACnetComplexTagUnsignedInteger ['1', > > 'BACnetDataType.UNSIGNED_INTEGER' ] 'deviceInstanceRangeHighLimit' > > 'deviceInstanceRangeLowLimit != null'] > > [try simple BACnetComplexTagOctetString ['2', > > 'BACnetDataType.OCTET_STRING' ] 'objectIdentifier' ] > > [optional BACnetComplexTagOctetString ['3', > > 'BACnetDataType.OCTET_STRING' ] 'objectName' 'objectIdentifier == null' > > ] > > ] > > > > The logic if a type matches is asserted in the type itself. The second > > optional implies when the first element appears the second must be present. > > The last one tries to read and if it fails it uses the second type. > > > > Here is the snippet from the parent type: > > > > [discriminatedType 'BACnetComplexTag' [uint 4 'tagNumberArgument', > > BACnetDataType 'dataType'] > > [assert uint 4 'tagNumber' > > 'tagNumberArgument' ] > > [const TagClass 'tagClass' > > 'TagClass.CONTEXT_SPECIFIC_TAGS' ] > > [simple uint 3 'lengthValueType' > > ] > > ..... > > [virtual uint 32 'actualLength' 'lengthValueType == > > 5 ....'] > > [typeSwitch 'dataType' > > .... > > ['OCTET_STRING' BACnetComplexTagOctetString [uint 32 > > 'actualLength'] > > // TODO: The reader expects int but uint32 get's mapped to > > long so even uint32 would easily overflow... > > [virtual uint 16 > > 'actualLengthInBit' 'actualLength * 8'] > > [simple string 'actualLengthInBit' 'ASCII' 'theString'] > > ] > > > > Would love to hear some opinions! If there are no objections I would push > > this change to develop soon. > > > > - Sebastian > > > > PatchContent: > > Index: > > code-generation/protocol-base-mspec/src/main/antlr4/org/apache/plc4x > > /plugins/codegenerator/language/mspec/MSpec.g4 > > <+>UTF-8 > > =================================================================== > > diff --git > > a/code-generation/protocol-base-mspec/src/main/antlr4/org/apache/plc4x/plugins/codegenerator/language/mspec/MSpec.g4 > > > > b/code-generation/protocol-base-mspec/src/main/antlr4/org/apache/plc4x/plugins/codegenerator/language/mspec/MSpec.g4 > > --- > > a/code-generation/protocol-base-mspec/src/main/antlr4/org/apache/plc4x/plugins/codegenerator/language/mspec/MSpec.g4 > > (revision ef35531d5a872f29dccddb3a11a135b166958185) > > +++ > > b/code-generation/protocol-base-mspec/src/main/antlr4/org/apache/plc4x/plugins/codegenerator/language/mspec/MSpec.g4 > > (date 1632518519426) > > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ > > ; > > > > fieldDefinition > > - : LBRACKET field (LBRACKET params=multipleExpressions RBRACKET)? > > RBRACKET > > + : LBRACKET tryParse? field (LBRACKET params=multipleExpressions > > + RBRACKET)? RBRACKET > > ; > > > > dataIoDefinition > > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ > > | discriminatorField > > | enumField > > | implicitField > > + | assertField > > | manualArrayField > > | manualField > > | optionalField > > @@ -73,7 +74,7 @@ > > ; > > > > constField > > - : 'const' type=dataType name=idExpression expected=expression > > + : 'const' type=typeReference name=idExpression expected=expression > > ; > > > > discriminatorField > > @@ -88,6 +89,10 @@ > > : 'implicit' type=dataType name=idExpression > > serializeExpression=expression > > ; > > > > +assertField > > + : 'assert' type=typeReference name=idExpression > > +condition=expression ; > > + > > manualArrayField > > : 'manualArray' type=typeReference name=idExpression > > loopType=ARRAY_LOOP_TYPE loopExpression=expression > > parseExpression=expression serializeExpression=expression > > lengthExpression=expression > > ; > > @@ -129,7 +134,7 @@ > > ; > > > > typeReference > > - : complexTypeReference=IDENTIFIER_LITERAL > > + : complexTypeReference=IDENTIFIER_LITERAL (LBRACKET > > params=multipleExpressions RBRACKET)? > > | simpleTypeReference=dataType > > ; > > > > @@ -150,6 +155,10 @@ > > | base='dateTime' > > ; > > > > +tryParse > > + : 'try' > > + ; > > + > > argument > > : type=typeReference name=idExpression > > ; > > >
