Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Node.js and field names as input to ipgm.js and xmlservice #8

Closed
kadler opened this issue Apr 28, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Node.js and field names as input to ipgm.js and xmlservice #8

kadler opened this issue Apr 28, 2017 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@kadler
Copy link
Member

kadler commented Apr 28, 2017

Original report by Magne Kofoed (Bitbucket: magnekofoed, GitHub: magnekofoed).


Is it possible to put field names into ipgm.js (and xmlservice) and get the field names in the response? Both single variable names and field names in datastructures.
I want to have the field names in the response from xmlservice in order to create a better json response.

@kadler
Copy link
Member Author

kadler commented Apr 28, 2017

Original comment by Tony Cairns (Bitbucket: rangercairns, GitHub: rangercairns).


Unhelpful part ... xmlservice is not the problem ... 'names' are not a restriction in XMLSERVICE. That is, any added 'attribute' to xml comes back out ...

#!xml
<pgm name='ZZCALL'>
 <parm><data type='1A' var='myname' feild='myname'>a</data></parm>
 <parm>
  <ds var='myds' feild='myds'>
:

Helpful part ... the real issue is this particular node toolkit, which has an abbreviated idea of conversion from XML to JSON.

So, real question should be ...

Q: Can we change the 'interface' of the node Toolkit to allow additional 'user attributes' that return in json.

A: Maybe. However any change to an existing interface may affect current node scripts.

@kadler
Copy link
Member Author

kadler commented Apr 28, 2017

Original comment by Tony Cairns (Bitbucket: rangercairns, GitHub: rangercairns).


This is NOT an XMLSERVICE issue (already works as you suggest). Please move your issue to the offending node toolkit (this is your problem).

https://bitbucket.org/litmis/nodejs-itoolkit

@kadler
Copy link
Member Author

kadler commented Apr 28, 2017

Original comment by Aaron Bartell (Bitbucket: aaronbartell, GitHub: aaronbartell).


A: Maybe. However any change to an existing interface may affect current node scripts.

Should be able to add it to the "options" portion of the call without disrupting existing API signatures. But as Tony declares, this needs to be documented as an issue on the nodejs-itoolkit repo.

@kadler
Copy link
Member Author

kadler commented May 2, 2017

Original comment by Magne Kofoed (Bitbucket: magnekofoed, GitHub: magnekofoed).


Ok, thanks, I've moved this issue to nodejs-itoolkit.

@kadler kadler closed this as completed May 2, 2017
@kadler kadler added major enhancement New feature or request labels Jan 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant