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

[Oren M. <or...@qu...>]

Great.  This sounds reasonable to me.  We'll add it as a feature.

--oren
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Alvin Wang=20
  To: Oren Miller=20
  Cc: dav...@ma... ; Joerg Thoennes ; =
qui...@li... ; =
qui...@li... ; Yihu Fang=20
  Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:45 PM
  Subject: Re: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error =
for proprietary field value



  Oren, I meant to turn off as a whole, not on individual tag basis.  =
thx=20




       "Oren Miller" <or...@qu...>=20
        06/07/2005 12:56 PM=20

              =20
                To:        "Yihu Fang" <Yih...@re...>, "Alvin =
Wang" <AW...@FF...>=20
                cc:        <dav...@ma...>, "Joerg Thoennes" =
<Joe...@ma...>, <qui...@li...>, =
<qui...@li...>=20
                bcc:        =20
                Subject:        Re: "Value is incorrect (out of range) =
for this tag" error for proprietary field value=20



  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).=20
   =20
  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.=20
   =20
  --oren=20
   =20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Yihu Fang=20
  To: Alvin Wang ; Oren Miller=20
  Cc: dav...@ma... ; Joerg Thoennes ; =
qui...@li... ; =
qui...@li...=20
  Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 11:38 AM=20
  Subject: RE: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error =
for proprietary field value=20

  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.=20
   =20
  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.=20
   =20
  Thanks,=20
   =20
  -Yihu=20
   =20


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----


  From: Alvin Wang [mailto:AW...@FF...]=20
  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=20
   =20

  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...=20

  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)=20

  Thanks a lot=20
  Alvin=20



           "Oren Miller" <or...@qu...>=20
        06/07/2005 11:56 AM=20
              =20
               To:        <qui...@li...>, =
<qui...@li...>, "Alvin Wang" =
<AW...@FF...>=20
               cc:        <dave.linaker@macdcom>,. "Joerg Thoennes" =
<Joe...@ma...>, "Yihu Fang" <Yih...@re...>=20
               bcc:        =20
               Subject:        Re: "Value is incorrect (out of range) =
for this tag" error for    proprietary field value=20




  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.  =20
  =20
  --oren=20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Alvin Wang=20
  To: qui...@li... ; =
qui...@li...=20
  Cc: dav...@ma... ; Joerg Thoennes ; Oren Miller ; Yihu Fang=20
  Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 5:03 PM=20
  Subject: "Value is incorrect (out of range) for this tag" error for =
proprietary field value=20


  Hi,=20

  Can we have a new configuration that allows proprietary field value =
for a tag.  For example, today we received a message with =
MessageEncoding(347)=3DUTF-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.=20

  Thanks=20
  Alvin=20
  ********************************************************************** =
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. =
**********************************************************************=20



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

  To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit =
http://www.reuters.com/productinfo=20

  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.=20