| Summary: | Library CONST constUPD decimal = 543.21; incorrectly producing validation errors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | z_Archived | Reporter: | Kathy Carroll <carrollk> |
| Component: | EDT | Assignee: | Project Inbox <edt.compiler-inbox> |
| Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | pharmon |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
I have removed this restriction (in AbstractBinder) so that the messages are no longer produced for reference type Decimal types verified with 201111072101 & closed |
this declaration CONST constUPD decimal = 543.21; produces these errors Multiple markers at this line - IWN.VAL.3465.e 7/27 The number of non-decimal digits in value 543.21 is 3, which is longer than the defined length 0 for non-decimal digits of constant constUPD. - IWN.VAL.3466.e 7/27 The number of decimal digits in value 543.21 is 2, which is longer than the defined number of decimal digits 0 for constant constUPD. However, this is OK constUPD decimal = 543.21; Full test is // basic library library TestVariable updated decimal = 543.21; CONST constUPD decimal = 543.21; // constUPD decimal = 543.21; // Function Declarations function verify() {@Test} general decimal = 543.21; specific decimal(5,2) = 543.21; LogResult.assertTrue1(general == specific); end function variation2() {@Test} specific decimal(5,2) = 543.21; LogResult.assertTrue1(updated == specific); end function variation3() {@Test} specific decimal(5,2) = 543.21; LogResult.assertTrue1(constUPD == specific); end end