Hi Michal, On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 20:22 +0200, Michał Lowas-Rzechonek wrote: > Inga, Jakub, > > On 07/08, Stotland, Inga wrote: > > I agree that the validation for the gaps is needed. Interesting > > point > > about max number of elements... > > > > I wonder if a better check woul be to we to add to construct > > composition data as a validation point to make sure it fits in mesh > > message. Plus, an additional strict check can be done when Attach > > method is called: stored composition can be byte compared to the > > one > > dynamically generated from collected properties... > > If I read that correctly, this means we would need a way to build > Composition Data on the fly, during get_manager_object_cb processing. > > I think it would be possible to get rid of validate_model_property > function - instead, we could build a temporary mesh_node instance > using information provided by the application as-is, and then: > > - in case of existing nodes, generate Composition Data from both > existing and temporary instances, and byte-compare the two > > - in case of new nodes, simply save the temporary instace to 'nodes' > list > > All of that assumes that Composition Data generationchecks that: > - everything fits into a buffer (this is already done) > - mandatory models are present > - indexation is OK > > I think this would make things slightly more consistent, and we would > get rid of most "is_new" checks during attach/join/create/import. > This is exactly what I meant. Thanks for writing this up in a more explanatory way. This would be a comprehensive validation of the node's integrity. Regards, Inga
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
