Closed CBenghi closed 7 months ago
Feels like the audit tool needs to be a bit less black & white over what's an error?
For me those 103 'No Valid match' failures on Psets should be classed as a Warning rather than an Error. There's a difference between an Attribute name being invalid and a PropertyName not being one of the officially sanctioned ones - despite both being a lookup against some static reference data. The former is clearly a broken specification, while I'd argue the latter is largely an end user's perogative to not follow the Pset & Property naming guidelines. You could make the same case for using 'reserved' Pset_ prefixes for custom property sets (the 401 errors).
I'd compare IDS Audit error levels to software build errors. Errors, Warnings and Information logs are a useful analogy:
Error: The input is broken. It won't work unless you fix the issue Warning: This is bad practice, and may not work the way you hope, or may break in future Information: A friendly nudge that there may be new or better ways to get this done
@CBenghi Those are all very valid issues. This IDS is based on the OMA buildingsmart workgroup list of proposed changes to IFC. I think the list of issues nicely summarizes all proposals. To make it a valid IDS now we should remove/rename these OR reference another IFC schema that does not (yet?) exist.
@andyward adding different levels of error messages sounds like a good idea. They are real errors. Not in xml parsing, but some are invalid enumerations against the IFC schema, and others only break the reserved propertyset name guidelines which are pretty common, but still errors
@berlotti, would you like to comment on this?
wow! I didn't notice that one.... it should indeed be a valid IDS (valid IFC). I just made some quick changes. Thanks for noticing!
Hello @berlotti,
a few weeks ago you've added the OMA file to the development folder, but it contains a number audit failures starting from the following:
https://github.com/buildingSMART/IDS/blob/f597547179cf9368b8b9e4f3217327828fa747ea/Development/IDS_oma.ids#L138
the full audit report is as follows:
Could you double check with the authors if it's a problem with the file or with the audit tool, please? Best, Claudio