1319   AddCause for control value Out-of-range

This tissue has following status: green

Created: 15 Oct 2014

Links:

Page: 171

Clause: 20.5.2.9

Paragraph: Table 53/54

Category: Issue for edition 2 of this part

Issue: When controlling analogue values (e.g. INC, APC) a new control value will usually be rejected by the server if its value exceeds process specific tolerated maximum and minimum thresholds.

The definitions of the CDCs in 7-3 accomodate this usecase by incorporating designated DAs (minVal, maxVal) to specify a setting range.

However, imho there is no appropriate AddCause defined that covers the above mentioned case, apart from the generic and very unspecific "Unknown".

Proposal: I propose to extend the AddCause enumeration with following definition:

Value: Out-of-range
Explanation: Control action is aborted due to the control value being out of the tolerated setting range.

Discussion Created Status
?
Ballot until Editor
06 Feb 15 green
add cause descriptions will be enhanced in Ed2 2.1, specifying that inconsistent-parameters also covers the use case ctlVal service parameter is out-of-range of the supported range. 15 Dec 14 final proposal Janary, 16th, 2015
As minVal, maxVal are parameters bounding the range of the control value, inconsistent-parameters is a reasonable addCause for this case.

The definition should be extended as described by Thierry.
12 Dec 14 red
I propose instead of extending the addCause with a new one, to enhance the definition of the description we have today. Ed2.1 has already extended the scope of LN and objects , so that addCause can be shared by more application.
Out-of-range could be covered by the addCause inconsistent-parameters, for example with the following extended description:
"
The parameters between successive control services are not consistent, for example the 'ctlNum' of 'selectWithValue' and 'operate' service are different, or the service parameters uses value out-of-range of the supported range."
08 Dec 14 red

 

Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer