RI007_Stationing-property #64
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All scenarios should not have the same name.
| @implementer-agreement | ||
| @RI | ||
| Feature: RI007 - Stationing property | ||
| The rule verifies, that station information can be exported in IFC using Pset_Stationing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The rule verifies, that station information can be exported in IFC using Pset_Stationing. | |
| The rule verifies that station information is present in IFC using Pset_Stationing. |
| And Its attribute RelatingPropertyDefinition | ||
| And Its attribute Name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would allow a IfcQuantitySet to pass as well. We need to reconsider this.
| Scenario: Agreement on alignment stationing | ||
|
|
||
| Given A file with Schema Identifier "IFC4X3_TC1" or "IFC4X3_ADD1" or "IFC4X3" | ||
| And An IfcReferent | ||
| And Its attribute IsDefinedBy | ||
| And Its attribute RelatingPropertyDefinition | ||
| And Its attribute HasProperties | ||
| Then The value of attribute Name must be Station | ||
|
|
||
| Scenario: Agreement on alignment stationing | ||
|
|
||
| Given A file with Schema Identifier "IFC4X3_TC1" or "IFC4X3_ADD1" or "IFC4X3" | ||
| And An IfcReferent | ||
| And Its attribute IsDefinedBy | ||
| And Its attribute RelatingPropertyDefinition | ||
| And Its attribute HasProperties | ||
| And Its attribute NominalValue | ||
| Then The value must exist |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not agree with splitting this up in independent scenarios.
For example, any attached property with NominalValue non empty would pass the bottom test. The requirement was that the property named Station would have a non empty value.
| @dataclass | ||
| class MissingValueError: | ||
| related: ifcopenshell.entity_instance | ||
|
|
||
| def __str__(self): | ||
| return f"On instance {misc.fmt(self.related)} the value doesn't exist" |
|
This rule is i) partially test-specific (cannot be part of the Validation Service); ii) partially touching on topics currently under discussion by the Implementers Forum. For these reasons, my suggestion is to put the development of this rule on hold. I can inform when the IF reaches a conclusion on this topic. |
No description provided.