RE: Removing Length Check for Complex Types

ber 23, 2020 2:06 PM To: dev@daffodil.apache.org<mailto:dev@daffodil.apache.org> Subject: Re: Removing Length Check for Complex Types I think there is an issue here. isBitLengthOk is defined as val isLimitOk: Boolean = dis.withBitLengthLimit(nBits) { eParser.parse1(pState) } Assert.invariant(is

Re: Removing Length Check for Complex Types

ting the end of the 64 bits. So I think a parse error just because dis.withBitLengthLimit returned false is likely not correct. From: Steve Lawrence Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 7:39 AM To: dev@daffodil.apache.org Subject: Re: Removing Length Check for C

Re: Removing Length Check for Complex Types

I'd be interested to hear others thoughts, but this sounds like the right behavior to me. The use of isDefinedForLength for complex types is flawed--it is very reasonable for complex types to be too large to cache so we cannot call it to immediately determine if enough data exists for a complex ty

Removing Length Check for Complex Types

While pursuing 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