Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Quickfixj-users] Intermittently we receive the "Required Tag Missing" error for existing fields
|
From: <mic...@ba...> - 2019-03-11 10:04:29
|
Thank you Colin and Grant for your points, they give me some ideas for my further investigation. Michael >I don't think I've ever seen a body field in the header, or vice-versa, >which is what the docs say it's for. >Of course, I always create custom builds, so if that did happen, I'd just >fix it in the DD and regenerate. >On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:38 AM Colin DuPlantis colin@...<mailto:colin@...> wrote: >> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/ >> QuickFIX/J <http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/QuickFIX/J><http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/QuickFIX/J%3E>; Support: >> http://www.quickfixj.org/support/ >> >> >> Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the clarification. >> >> I'm surprised you haven't seen a fields-out-of-order scenario, though. It >> seems to me to be the exception rather than the rule. >> On 3/8/19 9:08 AM, Grant Birchmeier wrote: >> >> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/ >> QuickFIX/J Support: http://www.quickfixj.org/support/ >> >> >> 447 is PartyIDSource, which is in the NoParties group, so actually it is. >> (In the standard dictionary anyway.) >> >> However, you're right that my comment was not quite germane, as Michael's >> "Required tag missing" error message would not have come from a repeating >> group thing. >> >> I guess I jumped at it because in the past I've seen people wrongly >> suggest "ValidateFieldsOutOfOrder" for repeating group issues. In truth, >> that setting is to compensate for a very specific kind of misbehavior >> (which I've never myself seen) but its name is a bit of a misnomer. >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 10:55 AM Colin DuPlantis <colin@...> >> wrote: >> >>> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/ >>> QuickFIX/J <http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/QuickFIX/J><http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/QuickFIX/J%3E>; Support: >>> http://www.quickfixj.org/support/ >>> >>> >>> 447 isn't part of a repeating group >>> On 3/8/19 8:10 AM, Grant Birchmeier wrote: >>> >>> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/ >>> QuickFIX/J Support: http://www.quickfixj.org/support/ >>> >>> >>> NOOOO. "ValidateFieldsOutOfOrder" will not fix repeating group issues. >>> >>> From the docs: >>> *If set to N, fields that are out of order (i.e. body fields in the >>> header, or header fields in the body) will not be rejected. * >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 8:35 AM Colin DuPlantis <colin@...> >> wrote: >>> >>>> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/ >>>> QuickFIX/J <http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/QuickFIX/J><http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/QuickFIX/J%3E>; Support: >>> http://www.quickfixj.org/support/ >>>> >>>> >>>> The issue might be with the tags being out-of-order. There's another >>>> setting, something like, "validateOutOfOrder", that you should set to false >>>> in this scenario. >>> On 3/8/19 3:00 AM, michael.efis--- via Quickfixj-users wrote: >>>> >>>> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/ >>>> QuickFIX/J Support: http://www.quickfixj.org/support/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Could you advise on the following issue, please? >>>> >>>> We receive intermittent "Required Tag Missing" error while parsing >>>> incoming fix messages, even though the missing field is present in the >>>> message. For example in the following message the tag 447 is present on the >>>> message, and yet sometimes we receive "Required Tag Missing, field=447" >>>> while parsing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> 8=FIX.4.4|9=284|35=F|49=TEST_49|56=TEST_56|34=420|52=20190302-07:31:57.079|115=TEST3|116=TEST_116|11=TEST_11|41=TEST_41|55=TEST_55|48=TEST_48|22=4|54=2|60=20190302-07:31:56.933|38=TEST_38|207=TEST_207|454=3|455=TEST_455_1|456=TEST_456_1|455=TEST_455_2|456=TEST_456_2|455=TEST_455_3|456=TEST_456_3|453=1|448=TEST_448|447=D|452=3|10=XXX| >>>> >>>> This issue has been observed with cancel messages and it normally >>>> happens after application startup. We do use a data dictionary, and 99.8% >>>> of the time such cancellation messages work fine. We use quick fix version >>>> 1.5.3. (quickfixj-core-1.5.3.jar and quickfixj-msg-fix44-1.5.3.jar) >>>> >>>> Are there any know issues with intermittent "Required tag missing" >>>> errors? >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'd also created the https://www.quickfixj.org/jira/browse/QFJ-971 JIRA >>>> for this question as I was not sure if it falls into the "help" or "error" >>>> category. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Many thanks and Kind Regards >>>> >>>> Michael This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this e-mail or its attachments. Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. The Barclays Group does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. Replies to this e-mail may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons. Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of the Barclays Group is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by the Barclays Group. Barclays Services Limited provides support and administrative services across Barclays group. Barclays Services Limited is an appointed representative of Barclays Bank UK plc, Barclays Bank plc and Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. Barclays Bank UK plc and Barclays Bank plc are authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Clydesdale Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. |
