Path_MakePath should handle ResourceInstanceID

[mkowalczyk88]

The api/src/path.c:Path_MakePath should handle ResourceInstanceID argument. The use case is for example when running awa-server-read. Currently, if you pass full URI (for example "/3303/0/5700/0") you'll get the result twice. Also, I guess you cannot read specific resource instance if you have many of them.

[GonZo]

Hi @mkmk88 the example that you posted here does not make much sense since resource 5700 is not a collection.

[DavidAntliff]

Be careful here. In the original design, the formal term "Path" does not refer to the Resource Instance, it is only for referring to a Resource (i.e. Object/ObjectInstance/Resource). There are many places within the API where this distinction is important.

The only place (currently) where you'll see paths that include a ResourceInstance ID (like "/3303/0/5700/0") is with the tool command line. This is a convenience thing and is not reflected internally.

There are many API functions that take a Path and a separate Resource Instance ID. This is intentional.

[mkowalczyk88]

Ok I don't insist that Path_MakePath should be changed, but still it is confusing while using awa-server-read tool. I've created one instance of Object 3303 and one instance of Resource 5700 within that object. Then, for the test, I want to use awa-server to read this particular instance. And if I go with awa-server-read <client_name> /3303/0/5700/0 (because this is the format I expect as a user) I'm getting my result, but there is double print of it (the same result is printed twice). Only if I omit the Resource ID then I'm getting correct single read. I didn't test what happen if I have two instances of given resource, yet. All in all I want to report the confusion while using awa-server-read tool. So, maybe the title of this issue is now wrong, but I hope the description is now clear. I can change the title if needed of course. I'll also have a look what happens if I have more instances of given resource (how the awa-server-read behaves).

[mkowalczyk88]

i now see the point about this resource not being a collection. Thank you for clarification.