Issues #6193
sRpN5 does not test for the case where URCBs are association based (non-indexed).
Description
the goal of the test is that an URCB instance is “protected” and can’t be changed by another client. When URCBs are non-indexed (association based) such protection is evident, but there should be a test case to be sure that two clients get their own URCB instance.
This applies to both edition 2 and edition 2.1
Files
Updated by Richard Schimmel almost 2 years ago
- File Solution to redmine 6193 sRpN5.docx Solution to redmine 6193 sRpN5.docx added
- Initial Test Document set to Ed2 TP2.0.6 and Ed2Amd1 TP1.2
Added solution
Updated by Thierry Dufaure almost 2 years ago
I agree with the proposal of Richard.
I recommend nevertheless the wording:
when (SCL ReportControl indexed=true or SCL ReportControl indexed is not present) and response+ when SCL indexed=false
Updated by IEC 61850 TPWG almost 2 years ago
- Due date changed from 01/10/2023 to 01/24/2023
- Assignee changed from Richard Schimmel to Thierry Dufaure
Thierry is to investigate further whether indexed="false" is allowed with only one instance.
Updated by Thierry Dufaure almost 2 years ago
indexed="false" is allowed with max="1".
Propose wording:
DUT sends SetURCBValues response+ when (SCL indexed=false and max > 1), otherwise DUT sends SetURCBValues response- with data access error = temporarily-unavailable.
Updated by IEC 61850 TPWG almost 2 years ago
- Assignee changed from Thierry Dufaure to Richard Schimmel
Accepted.
Updated by Richard Schimmel almost 2 years ago
Updated according to last proposal.
Updated by Richard Schimmel 9 months ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed
- Updated Test Document set to TP1.3