Hmm, I had a hard time recreating the issue when trying to extend the current JUnit test. Turns out that it already works in 2.10-SNAPSHOT. Uncertain when and how, still trying to figure it out since it does seem to be a side effect of some other change.
Den 31 mars 2012 13:18 skrev Magnus Palmér <magnus.palmer.w...@gmail.com>: > JIRA ticket created: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5133 > > > Den 31 mars 2012 12:56 skrev Magnus Palmér <magnus.palmer.w...@gmail.com>: > > Sure, I can create a JIRA ticket for it. >> Will have to set up my dev-environment properly to be able to patch it >> though. >> It is in my plan to do anyway but since I am on paternity leave it will >> take a few days since I only have a few hours every day to stuff like this. >> I will migrate a legacy integration platform from in-house framework to >> Camel so I will finally get to spend a lot more time to get familiar with >> the details of Camel. >> >> Anyway, not sure how to patch it. >> >> The problem occurs only when separator is considered a whitespace >> character. >> Could be tested via Character.isWhitespace(separator) >> The other way around is to remove the trim(), I don't see the point in >> trimming the read line, but then I could jeopardize working code. >> Or maybe only trim if Character.isWhitespace(separator) == false? >> >> Perhaps such questions is better placed on the dev-list (not subscribing >> to that one yet)? >> >> Kind regards, Magnus >> >> >> Den 31 mars 2012 12:05 skrev Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>: >> >> 2012/3/29 Magnus Palmér <magnus.palmer.w...@gmail.com>: >>> > I can confirm, I get the same error as you do when I remove the two >>> last >>> > fields at the end of the line as you did. >>> > >>> > I think this is the where it starts to get wrong: >>> > BindyCsvDataFormat.java >>> > >>> > 138 // Read the line >>> > 139 String line = scanner.nextLine().trim(); >>> > >>> > String.trim() trims all the remaining tabs... >>> > >>> >>> Well spotted. Do you mind created a JIRA ticket? And patches is welcome. >>> >>> >>> > Den 29 mars 2012 11:17 skrev Aida <ai.d...@gmail.com>: >>> > >>> >> Hi again, thank you for the quick answers. >>> >> >>> >> I think I have been able to replicate the problem in an easy way. I >>> have >>> >> built some test cases and I have found the one in which I'm having >>> trouble. >>> >> The "required=false" option is working for me always except in one >>> case. >>> >> >>> >> This case is when the two missing fields occur at the end of a line >>> at the >>> >> same time. I'm going to explain it with my test cases. >>> >> >>> >> I have built a simple route for my unitary tests: >>> >> >>> >> from(URI_START_PROCESS) >>> >> .unmarshal().bindy(BindyType.Csv, "com.mypackage") >>> >> .to(URI_END_PROCESS_MOCK); >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> My class (I have only one) in "com.mypackage" has the following >>> >> annotations: >>> >> @CsvRecord(separator="\t") >>> >> from positions 1 to 5: @DataField(pos = N, required = true) >>> >> for positions 6 and 7 : @DataField(pos = N, required = false) (so >>> fields 6 >>> >> and 7 are optional) >>> >> >>> >> Test Cases: >>> >> >>> >> Case 1: Processing two lines with ALL the fields (Works like a >>> charm) >>> >> String data2Process = "data1\t14700\t2011-10-04 >>> >> 04:00\t5\t1\t5\t9\ndata2\t14700\t2011-10-04 05:00\t49\t2\t5"; >>> >> >>> >> Case 2: Processing two lines. In the first line the 6th field is >>> missing >>> >> (works perfectly) >>> >> String data2Process = "data1\t14700\t2011-10-04 >>> >> 04:00\t5\t0*\t\t*0\ndata2\t14700\t2011-10-04 05:00\t149\t0\t0"; >>> >> >>> >> Case 3: Processing two lines. In the first line the 7th field is >>> missing >>> >> (works perfectly) >>> >> String data2Process = "data1\t14700\t2011-10-04 >>> >> 04:00\t5\t0\t0*\t\n*data2\t14700\t2011-10-04 05:00\t149\t0\t0"; >>> >> >>> >> Case 4: Processing two lines. In the first line, both 6th and 7th >>> field are >>> >> missing (is not working) >>> >> String data2Process = "data1\t14700\t2011-10-04 >>> >> 04:00\t5\t0*\t\t\n*data2\t14700\t2011-10-04 05:00\t149\t0\t0"; >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I also tried a variation of Case 4, in which I made field 5 also not >>> >> required and the missing fields were 5th and 6th, in this case there >>> were >>> >> no >>> >> problems. >>> >> >>> >> The exception is the one I said before: "Some fields are missing >>> (optional >>> >> or mandatory), line:1" >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> View this message in context: >>> >> >>> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Bindy-Having-trouble-with-the-required-field-tp5597196p5603131.html >>> >> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Claus Ibsen >>> ----------------- >>> CamelOne 2012 Conference, May 15-16, 2012: http://camelone.com >>> FuseSource >>> Email: cib...@fusesource.com >>> Web: http://fusesource.com >>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews >>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ >>> >> >> >
