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

Client cannot Handle BaseObjectType with Addins #471

Open
Kantiran91 opened this issue May 17, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Client cannot Handle BaseObjectType with Addins #471

Kantiran91 opened this issue May 17, 2023 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Kantiran91
Copy link
Member

Log:
2023-05-17 11:09:17,327 [DashboardOpcUaClient] WARNING void Umati::Dashboard::DashboardClient::preparePlaceholderNodesTypeId(const std::shared_ptr<const ModelOpcUa::StructurePlaceholderNode> &, std::shared_ptr<ModelOpcUa::PlaceholderNode> &, std::list<ModelOpcUa::BrowseResult_t> &):395 Could not find a possible type for nsu=. Continuing without a candidate. 2023-05-17 11:09:17,328 [DashboardOpcUaClient] INFO void Umati::Dashboard::DashboardClient::preparePlaceholderNodesTypeId(const std::shared_ptr<const ModelOpcUa::StructurePlaceholderNode> &, std::shared_ptr<ModelOpcUa::PlaceholderNode> &, std::list<ModelOpcUa::BrowseResult_t> &):379 Updated TypeDefinition of ComputingDevice to nsu=o??
p?o?? p?? pH?? phB? p????
p> ?pD ??@0?? p?>? 0;?? p?? because the node implements an interface 2023-05-17 11:09:17,328 [DashboardOpcUaClient] WARNING void Umati::Dashboard::DashboardClient::preparePlaceholderNodesTypeId(const std::shared_ptr<const ModelOpcUa::StructurePlaceholderNode> &, std::shared_ptr<ModelOpcUa::PlaceholderNode> &, std::list<ModelOpcUa::BrowseResult_t> &):395 Could not find a possible type for nsu=. Continuing without a candidate.

SDK: Unified Automation
Client Version: 2.0.0-rc6-11-g664326a-dirty
Companion Specification: MV Part 2

An example Server can be used.

@Kantiran91 Kantiran91 added the bug Something isn't working label May 17, 2023
@Kantiran91
Copy link
Member Author

Thr Problem in this case is that the server has no HasInterfaceType references.
@xenonforlife Is this a correct behaviour of the Spec that Components have not Interface but only Addins?
@GoetzGoerisch @DasbachVDMA In this case we need to implement an solution for the Addins?

@Kantiran91 Kantiran91 changed the title Client cannot resolve InterfaceType correct Client cannot Handle BaseObjectType with Addins May 24, 2023
@GoetzGoerisch
Copy link
Member

Which server is this? The node-opcua sample server with MV2 is not complete.

@Kantiran91
Copy link
Member Author

It is an example server from @xenonforlife based an Unified Automation

@GoetzGoerisch
Copy link
Member

@xenonforlife how is this different from a instance perspective than the node-opcua server?

@Kantiran91 Kantiran91 added enhancement New feature or request and removed bug Something isn't working labels May 31, 2023
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

2 participants