RE: [Quickfix-developers] NoRelatedSym Class

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Yes, without validation (DataDict defined in settings)
group receiving is broken. This should be highlighted
in documentation because almost everyone has run into
it.

Gene
--- Mike Hepburn <mi...@an...> wrote:
> All,
> 
> Some further testing reveals that without validation
> (i.e no
> DataDictionary defined) the acceptor dump of the
> incoming message
> appears wrong:
> 
> sent:
> <message>
>   <header>
>     <field number="8" value="FIX.4.3"/>
>     <field number="35" value="V"/>
>   </header>
>   <body>
>     <field number="146" value="1"/>
>     <field number="262" value="1"/>
>     <field number="263" value="0"/>
>     <field number="264" value="0"/>
>     <field number="267" value="1"/>
>     <group>
>       <field number="55" value="tsco.l"/>
>     </group>
>     <group>
>       <field number="269" value="0"/>
>     </group>
>   </body>
>   <trailer>
>   </trailer>
> </message>
> 
> 
> received(no validation):
>  <message>
>   <header>
>     <field number="8" value="FIX.4.3"/>
>     <field number="9" value="94"/>
>     <field number="35" value="V"/>
>     <field number="34" value="3"/>
>     <field number="49" value="CLIENT1"/>
>     <field number="52" value="20030430-11:21:01"/>
>     <field number="56" value="AM"/>
>   </header>
>   <body>
>     <field number="55" value="tsco.l"/>
>     <field number="146" value="1"/>
>     <field number="262" value="1"/>
>     <field number="263" value="0"/>
>     <field number="264" value="0"/>
>     <field number="267" value="1"/>
>     <field number="269" value="0"/>
>   </body>
>   <trailer>
>     <field number="10" value="224"/>
>   </trailer>
> </message>
> 
> It looks like message XML encoding still has bugs
> for repeating groups ?
> i ran ethereal over the connection to see if it was
> the encoding or
> decoding - looks like it is the encoding:
> 
> Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: 46450
> (46450), Dst Port: 5001
> (5001), Seq: 1717567461, Ack: 1741597886, Len: 116
>     Source port: 46450 (46450)
>     Destination port: 5001 (5001)
>     Sequence number: 1717567461
>     Next sequence number: 1717567577
>     Acknowledgement number: 1741597886
>     Header length: 32 bytes
>     Flags: 0x0018 (PSH, ACK)
>         0... .... = Congestion Window Reduced (CWR):
> Not set
>         .0.. .... = ECN-Echo: Not set
>         ..0. .... = Urgent: Not set
>         ...1 .... = Acknowledgment: Set
>         .... 1... = Push: Set
>         .... .0.. = Reset: Not set
>         .... ..0. = Syn: Not set
>         .... ...0 = Fin: Not set
>     Window size: 6432
>     Checksum: 0x9704 (correct)
>     Options: (12 bytes)
>         NOP
>         NOP
>         Time stamp: tsval 250859949, tsecr 245892923
> Financial Information eXchange Protocol
>     BeginString (8): FIX.4.3
>     BodyLength (9): 94
>     MsgType (35): V
>     MsgSeqNum (34): 3
>     SenderCompID (49): CLIENT1
>     SendingTime (52): 20030430-11:21:01
>     TargetCompID (56): AM
>     NoRelatedSym (146): 1
>     Symbol (55): tsco.l
>     MDReqID (262): 1
>     SubscriptionRequestType (263): 0
>     MarketDepth (264): 0
>     NoMDEntryTypes (267): 1
>     MDEntryType (269): 0
>     CheckSum (10): 224
> 
> Frame 2 (66 bytes on wire, 66 bytes captured)
> 
> The 'on the wire' message doesn't have the group's
> defined either.
> 
> Does anyone else see this using the java bindings,
> FIX43.xml and
> repeating groups ?
>  
> Cheers
> Mike 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 10:52, Mike Hepburn wrote:
> > Hi Oren,
> > 
> > i have narrowed this down to being a java problem.
> I added a validation
> > test in C++ for the MarketDataRequest message and
> it passed OK. the XML
> > data structure (from toXML()) produced by C++ and
> java is identical.
> > 
> > Unfortunately there are no java bindings for the
> DataDictionary class -
> > so i couldn't repeat the test in java. i
> considered implementing
> > DataDictionary::validate via jni but thought
> something more basic must
> > be going on.
> > 
> > in java the data dictionary (FIX43.xml) appears to
> load OK and validate
> > other message types (e.g NewOrderSingle's) OK - my
> next step is to strip
> > the DataDictionary XML file down to only have the
> MarketDataRequest to
> > see if i get further.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 20:13, Oren Miller wrote:
> > > Yeah.  DataDictionary is a good place to start. 
> I would take a look at the DataDictionaryTestCase. 
> If there is a problem, it will probably be one of
> two things. 1) the XML file is not being loaded
> correctly2) there is a problem with the validation
> itself You can verify #2 by adding some asserts to
> the readFromFile test.  If you do not detect a
> problem there, then you can add tests to
> checkIsInMessage (test for the code that determines
> a field belongs to a message), and checkValidFormat
> (test for full validation of a message). You may
> want to synch up with CVS so that you have the
> latest code and tests. If you want to debug or use
> trace statements instead. I would recommend creating
> a DD XML file that only contains the message you are
> concerned with.  You can then look for problems
> reading from the file or validating.  I prefer,
> however, to have a failing test that exposes the
> problem before I venture into the code. Let use know
> if you find anything or if you need any other!
> > >  pointers.  If you are able to provide a small
> project that can demonstrate the error, that would
> allow myself and others to be more active in helping
> you.  Good luck. mike <mi...@an...> wrote:HI
> Oren, yes, both the acceptor and receiver use the
> same quickfix library & share the same
> DataDictionary (my app is written uses the java
> bindings to QF and both statically load the quickfix
> library via jni). is there a good place for me to
> put some debug in the source to get to the bottom of
> this ? is DataDistionary.cpp a good place to start ?
> CheersMike-----Original Message-----
> > > From: Oren Miller [mailto:ore...@ya...] 
> > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:31 PM
> > > To: Mike Hepburn; quickfix
> > > Subject: RE: [Quickfix-developers] NoRelatedSym
> Class
> > > 
> > > Did you link the patched version to the
> receiving application as well?
> > > 
> > > Mike Hepburn <mi...@an...> wrote: Hi All,
> > > 
> > > i also seem to have problems using the group
> NoRelatedSym in a
> > > MarketDataRequest message. i have followed the
> previous threads on this
> > > but to no avail.
> > > 
> 
=== message truncated ===

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature
name=signature.asc

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com