bugfix: Create virtual IED does not consider multiple instances of a LNType within a function #1595
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you done these changes by hand ? I think these snapshots are generated by a tool (not sure tho).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I got confirmation by Christopher : these are generated.
salvar3nga
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The bug is described here: #1567
Description
When the user assigns multiple instances of a same LNType (even though instance numbers/prefixes are different) to a Function element, they are visualized just as normal with no problem like below;
Next, user creates a Virtual IED out of Functions which should turn out to LDs including those LNs within; (expected)
But at the end, it turns out to only last or first LN is included in the datamodel, and others are ignored.
Expected behaviour
Current problem:
