Wow. Having that mapping flipped seems pretty egregious. I guess we
updated all our schemas and so didn't have the tests of the older
property names.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:29 AM Steve Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hmm, Daffodil has this internal mapping:
>
>    required -> never
>    suppressed  -> anyEmpty
>    suppressedAtEndStrict -> trailingEmpty
>    suppressedAtEndLax -> trailingEmptyStrict
>
> https://github.com/apache/daffodil/blob/main/daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/lib/schema/annotation/props/ByHandMixins.scala#L198-L201
>
> Note that suppressedAtEndStrict and suppressedAtEndLax are swapped compared to
> the errata document. Seems like this is a bug in Daffodil, but if you use the
> above mapping to update your schemas it *should* give you the same behavior as
> before.
>
>
> On 2024-03-13 04:53 AM, Claude Mamo wrote:
> > Hi Daffodil community,
> >
> > Quick question, I noticed a couple of Daffodils warnings during testing 
> > saying
> > that /separatorPolicy/ is deprecated and that I should use instead
> > /separatorSuppressionPolicy/. I followed this doc for migrating to the new
> > attribute: https://ogf.org/documents/GFD.214.pdf
> > <https://ogf.org/documents/GFD.214.pdf> :
> >
> >     3.14. Section 14.2. To better describe the property and its behaviour, 
> > property
> >     separatorPolicy is renamed to separatorSuppressionPolicy, and its enums
> >     renamed as
> >     follows:
> >
> >     ‘required’ -> 'never'
> >     ‘suppressed’ -> 'anyEmpty'
> >     ‘suppressedAtEndLax’ -> 'trailingEmpty'
> >     ‘suppressedAtEndStrict -> 'trailingEmptyStrict'.
> >
> >     Additionally the property description for separatorSuppressionPolicy is
> >     rewritten, introductory
> >     paragraphs are added to section 14.2, and section 14.2.1 is replaced 
> > with
> >     new tables.
> >     This is covered in DFDL experience document 2 [DFDLX2]
> >
> >
> > My understanding is that this is purely a cosmetic change but, after 
> > migrating
> > to the new attribute, the tests started to fail. Has the behaviour changed 
> > as
> > well? I'm on version 3.6
> >
> > Claude
>

Reply via email to