[Quickfix-developers] Re: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error for proprietary field value

[Alvin W. <AW...@FF...>]

Oren, I meant to turn off as a whole, not on individual tag basis.  thx






"Oren Miller" <or...@qu...>
06/07/2005 12:56 PM

 
        To:     "Yihu Fang" <Yih...@re...>, "Alvin Wang" <AW...@FF...>
        cc:     <dav...@ma...>, "Joerg Thoennes" <Joe...@ma...>, 
<qui...@li...>, 
<qui...@li...>
        bcc: 
        Subject:        Re: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error for proprietary 
field value


I can see adding a configuration setting that would turn off enumeration 
checks as a whole.  I'm not so sure the configuration file is the place to 
turn them off on a field by field basis (I thought that was what was being 
talked about, perhaps not).
 
Yes, our validation of repeating groups has been inconsistent with that of 
body messages.  This is changing and they should be moving together so 
that the same code block is being used for both.
 
--oren
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Yihu Fang 
To: Alvin Wang ; Oren Miller 
Cc: dav...@ma... ; Joerg Thoennes ; qui...@li... ; qui...@li... 
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error for 
proprietary field value

Enumeration value check is a tricky one. QF strictly enforces this 
according to the FPL test case document and this could save additional 
check in the application level. However, I can see some application may 
want to have a more relaxed session layer check on this but still use QF 
data dictionary on the application level. Simply to delete all the values 
is not a clean solution. I could see some value in adding an option to 
turn on and off enumeration value check at the session layer.
 
Another related problem to the enumeration value check in QF is its 
inconsistency: those enumeration values in repeating fields are not being 
checked at all. This could be related to QF validation of repeating 
groups.
 
Thanks,
 
-Yihu
 

From: Alvin Wang [mailto:AW...@FF...] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:50 PM
To: Oren Miller
Cc: dav...@ma...; Joerg Thoennes; 
qui...@li...; 
qui...@li...; Yihu Fang
Subject: Re: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error for 
proprietary field value
 

But that means we have to manually delete all the enum values in 
dictionary, to avoid the similar problem in the future. ? :)     Also we 
may want to have the control on each session level... 

UTF_8 or UTF-8 would not affect our application because it does not care about that 
field. However, since the message was rejected merely because of this 
"minor imperfection" in it, our application cannot receive the message (or callback). (Pls refer my 
another email about this topic today) 

Thanks a lot 
Alvin 




 
"Oren Miller" <or...@qu...> 
06/07/2005 11:56 AM 
        
        To:        <qui...@li...>, 
<qui...@li...>, "Alvin Wang" 
<AW...@FF...> 
        cc:        <dave.linaker@macdcom>,. "Joerg Thoennes" 
<Joe...@ma...>, "Yihu Fang" <Yih...@re...> 
        bcc:         
        Subject:        Re: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this 
tag" error for    proprietary field value



Well, if you are ok with any value coming in, you can just delete all the 
enumeration elements from the field.  Basically it sounds like you want 
the field to be free form, in which case it makes no sense to have any 
enumeration elements to begin with.  Although I'm not really sure what 
your application would have done with the UTF_8 value if it didn't know to 
expect it beforehand.   
  
--oren 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alvin Wang 
To: qui...@li... ; qui...@li... 
Cc: dav...@ma... ; Joerg Thoennes ; Oren Miller ; Yihu Fang 
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 5:03 PM 
Subject: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error for proprietary 
field value 


Hi, 

Can we have a new configuration that allows proprietary field value for a 
tag.  For example, today we received a message with 
MessageEncoding(347)=UTF-8. However, in Quickfix dictionary, it is UTF_8 
(BTW, i believe UTF-8 is official according to FIX document). We had to 
manually edit FIX44.xml and restart our FIX engine. That means, each time 
counterparty has a proprietary field value, we have to manually add it 
into the dictionary, otherwise the message will be rejected by QF. 

Thanks 
Alvin 
********************************************************************** 
This e-mail message is intended solely for the use of the addressee. The 
message may contain information that is privileged and confidential. 
Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please do not disseminate, distribute 
or copy this communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify 
us immediately by return e-mail (including the original message with your 
reply) and then delete and discard all copies of the message. We have 
taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses 
but nevertheless advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any 
attachment to this message. We accept no liability for any loss or damage 
caused by software viruses. 
********************************************************************** 


-------------------------------------------------------- --------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.