Skip to content
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.

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

Non-optional SET [0:?] #660

Open
iegorychev opened this issue Jun 27, 2023 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #850
Open

Non-optional SET [0:?] #660

iegorychev opened this issue Jun 27, 2023 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #850
Labels
EXPRESS Issues or pull requests relating to EXPRESS schema

Comments

@iegorychev
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi All,

ENTITY IfcCurveBoundedPlane
SUBTYPE OF (IfcBoundedSurface);
BasisSurface : IfcPlane;
OuterBoundary : IfcCurve;
InnerBoundaries : SET [0:?] OF IfcCurve;
END_ENTITY;

Validation "Validate required attributes assigned" should return TRUE, if all non-optional attributes have values, or if object has non-optional attributes [only]; FALSE if any non-optional attribute has no value (10303-22).

I've just got a file with InnerBoundaries=$ which doesn't pass validation as it should be () at least in correct case. =)

Shouldn't such cases for explicit attributes be transformed into InnerBoundaries : OPTIONAL SET [1:?] OF IfcCurve; ?

@TLiebich
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @iegorychev

to me it is a known anomaly - in IFC development we always used optional set[1:?], with the exception of those entities taken over from STEP (mainly part 42). As it is the case here. Changing it now would lead to incompatibilities () vs. $ in the part 21 file structure. So it should be an issue addressed with a next major version to unify modeling style and also in general to minimize the often redundent ways to express geometry..

@SergejMuhic
Copy link
Collaborator

SergejMuhic commented Jun 28, 2023

Ah yes, this is definitely a pain for us implementers. I would support this. Empty lists still take memory so either there is something in it or we do not need it.

EDIT: We are also missing a lot of WRs from the definition (similar to IfcCompositeCurveOnSurface). I think this should be addressed for proper implementation of these definitions.

@SergejMuhic
Copy link
Collaborator

@TLiebich I am not sure if you are talking about IfcCurveBoundedPlane here:

to minimize the often redundent ways to express geometry

If you are, what is redundant about this definition?

@TLiebich
Copy link
Collaborator

@SergejMuhic - this statement was not specific about IfcCurveBoundedPlane. More a general observation.

@SergejMuhic SergejMuhic added the EXPRESS Issues or pull requests relating to EXPRESS schema label Feb 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
EXPRESS Issues or pull requests relating to EXPRESS schema
Projects
Status: TODO
3 participants