[Nmc-wg] Mappings: old result codes -> new result codes

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi Roman;

I have added these to the wiki, we can discuss them today.

-jason

On 9/30/10 8:45 AM, Roman Łapacz wrote:
> Hi Jason, Aaron and others,
>
> I attached mapping text file and MS Word doc with small updates (just to
> have them together in one email).
>
> W dniu 2010-05-27 21:08, Jason Zurawski pisze:
>> Hi Roman/All;
>>
>> Some comments on the proposal:
>>
>> "Wrong structure of a request":
>>
>> Like Aaron, I think I am having a hard time with some of these as
>> being a purely 'structural' issue. For instance
>> 'error.ls.data_trigger' - I would assert there is some context to be
>> known about the content of the rest of the message before calling this
>> structural issue (for instance if there was a data/metadata pair
>> already).
>
> If there is such data/metadata pair in a message than I wouldn't expect
> to get error.ls.data_trigger. An example of xml message would help to
> analyse such case.
>
>>
>> I think most of these are right, but we should be careful with the
>> context before calling all of them a pure xml structure violation.
>
> I still have the problem how much context should be included in the code
> (mainly datum element contains a description).
>
>>
>> "EventType in a request is not supported":
>>
>> This also seems more context sensitive to me.
>>
>> "Request is not supported":
>>
>> I think 'message type unsupported' is different than 'no message type
>> specified'
>
> It just says ther's a problem with message type. Can we assume that if
> there's no message type then default type is considered (default type
> may be unspecified).
>
>>
>> "Elements of a request are not supported"
>>
>> I think we may need to be a bit more clear in the message. Instead of
>> 'wrong XXX' we may want to say 'unexpected XXX element' or something
>> similar. This will clear up of the content is wrong or the element is
>> wrong.
>
> Doesn't message_element_not_supported match here?
>
> Roman
>
>>
>> Thanks;
>>
>> -jason
>>
>>
>> On 5/27/10 10:56 AM, romradz at man.poznan.pl wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Aron,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> One minor thing. I'd move the "No message type specified" to the
>>>> "wrong_message_structure" since the request is missing a required
>>>> element.
>>>> I'm curious what the "message_element_not_supported" event type is
>>>> for. From the error messages listed, It wasn't obvious to me why the
>>>> service threw
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> for example, if an element located in a request is not recognized (or
>>> the content of xml tag is wrong, eg. ip address)
>>>
>>> Roman
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Aaron
>>>>
>>>> On May 27, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've started preparing the mappings. So far I've focused only on RRD
>>>> MA, PSPS commons and PSPS LS. This is just the beginning for the
>>>> discussion (to check if this is a good direction for all interested).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Roman
>>>> <proposal-of-mappings-20100527v1.txt>