AW: FW: [AGENT++] Possible bug in SET-response

[fock at agentpp.com]

Hello Marcus,

I will check that end of this week and will
get back with the outcome not later than Monday.

Best regards,
Frank

>Moin,
>
>I've posted a possible bug some days ago, but didn't get any answer yet.
>So, can anyone approve or disprove my claim?
>
>Thanks,
>Marcus
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I think I might have find a minor bug regarding SET-request processing in case 
>of an error.
>
>Situation:
>A SET-request results in an error, for instance, a notWritable-error that is 
>included in the SET-response PDU. The fields errorStatus and errorIndex are 
>set accordingly. But the variable bindings of the response PDU are set to NULL 
>values. Accordingly to RFC3416 §4.2.5, the SET-response PDU shall keep the 
>variable bindings of the original request.
>
>Investigation:
>The processing of the SET-request ends with the invocation of Mib::finalize 
>which further invokes RequestList::answer. While executing this method the 
>method RequestList::null_vbs gets invoked. This is pretty good for any 
>GET-request type (also accordingly to RFC3416), but it isn't for a 
>SET-request.
>I modified the RequestList::answer in order to skip this method invocation for 
>a SET-PDU. But I'm unable to appraise for any side-effects on this 
>modification.
>
>However, do you agree on my interpretation of RFC3416?
>
>Regards,
>Marcus
>
> 
>
>Marcus Fehde
>R&D Business Unit Perioperative Care
>S30 Module Project Leader
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>Draeger Medical AG & Co. KG
>Moislinger Allee 53-55
>D-23542 Luebeck
>
>Phone:   + 49-451-882-3646
>Fax:         + 49-451-882-73646
>Mobile: + 49-177 79 78 272
>
>E-mail: marcus.fehde at draeger.com
>
>www.draeger-medical.com <http://www.draeger-medical.com> 
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AGENTPP mailing list
>AGENTPP at agentpp.org
>http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/agentpp