Skip to content

Calling an not implemented optional fault should be a sender error. #715

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
HansBusch wants to merge 2 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Calling an not implemented optional fault should be a sender error. #715

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ebbeea5
Calling an not implement optional fault should be a sender error.
HansBusch Jan 29, 2026
5147d6b
Add annotation instead of changing to sender.
HansBusch Mar 10, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion doc/Core.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2108,7 +2108,7 @@ DATE: when response was generated
</row>
<row>
<entry>
<para>env:Receiver</para>
<para>env:Sender</para>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@melanconj melanconj Jan 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure I agree, the sender has sent a potentially valid command, it is the receiver that isn't implementing it/supporting it. It felt correct before

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@HansBusch HansBusch Jan 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see two potential cases:

  1. the device signals the availability of a method via its capability but doesn't implement. This is clearly a device aka receiver issue.
  2. the device doesn't signal the availability of a method via its capability and the client nevertheless calls it. This is clearly a client aka sender issue.

A well implemented device should respond as 2. and a badly implemented one as 1.

As the device is the one that decides I prefer option 2. If it missbehaves it is a bug.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@MariaYa0091 MariaYa0091 Feb 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This fault is widely used at DTT which have impact on both feature discovery procedure and test cases (to check feature support for older endpoints without capabilities).

Just replacing fault at DTT will have impact for already existing implementations.

As a solution DTT could be change to expect any of env:Receiver/env:Sender, but at will not be a simple update (because of different places involved) .

Also please take in account that the same changes to be done for the real Clients.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@HansBusch HansBusch Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then suggest to keep as is and add annotation to table 4 that the fault may be caused by sender although labeled as env:receiver.

</entry>
<entry>
<para>ter:ActionNotSupported</para>
Expand Down