|
| Re: Validating FBOOT file by a runtime application [message #1823945 is a reply to message #1823877] |
Sat, 04 April 2020 11:09   |
|
I'm happy that 4diac gives you very satisfying results.
Regarding your question: What would you like to validate. If the bootfile is in itself correct? Or if all the types of the bootfile are available? Have you tested our experimental Lua enhanced 4diac FORTE where types are dynamically loaded?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Validating FBOOT file by a runtime application [message #1824028 is a reply to message #1823985] |
Mon, 06 April 2020 17:29 |
|
That would be an interesting tool. The point i see is that if it should be a remote tool or part of the 4diac FORTE you would like to test. From my experience sofar mostly the problem is that certain types are not available in the run-time. All other errors are typically caused by FBs not beeing able to be created. So a first checker could simply send a Query types command to a running 4diac FORTE instance and then check the bootfile if only available types are used. The next step would be to also check if the types have the same interface (i.e., so that the connections and parameters can be created) this is a bit more complicated because for that you need to access the type lib. I don't know if we already have an API for that. But it could be done I think.
Finally the reason I brought up the Lua extended 4diac FORTE is exactly the first problem I mentioned above. Most of the time the problem is a missing type. With the Lua version types can dynamically loaded either remotely or from the bootfile. Therefore I root cause for most errors is gone.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03868 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
