[Isomorphic]

If you think the problem is in DSResponse processing after you've returned your DSResponse, then the minimal test case we described above could be changed so that it shows a DataSource operation being performed rather than just being a standalone Java application. But we still need the *minimal* test case, not a bunch of Axis-generated WSDL wrappers.

[dsijakovic]

Hi, I've reproduced issue in ds-dmi example.
Copy java files to com.smartgwt.sample.server.
Datasource files to ds folder.
I'l attach DataSourceDMI.html (only added my datasources to DataDourceLoader)

<script src="dsdmi/sc/DataSourceLoader?dataSource=supplyItem,supplyItemDMI,Contract,Item,TimeSeries,ItemVariableData,KeyValueOfdateTimedouble"></script>

At the end of onModuleLoad() method in com.smartgwt.sample.client.DataSourceDMI.java add:

DataSource contractDs = DataSource.get("Contract");
        contractDs.fetchData(null, new DSCallback() {
            
            @Override
            public void execute(DSResponse dsResponse, Object data, DSRequest dsRequest) {
                SC.warn("Data fetched!");
                
            }
        });

You should be able to see differences in responses in RPC tab from SmartGWT 5.0 and 6.0.
5_0_Response is expected result.

Few differences:

In 5.0:
itemVariables:[
{
date:"2017-01-31T08:42:40.772",
capacityContract:"SOME_LONG_STRING",
capacityContractType:"A04",
id:1
}
],

In 6.0:
itemVariables:null,

In 5.0:
days:[
"Monday",
"Saturday"
],

In 6.0:
No days at all

In 5.0:
values:[
{
value:34.67,
key:"2017-01-31T08:42:40.772"
},
{
value:34.67,
key:"2017-01-31T08:42:40.772"
},
{
value:34.67,
key:"2017-01-31T08:42:40.772"
},

In 6.0:
values:null,

Versions tested are :
SmartClient Version: v10.0p_2017-01-13/Pro Deployment (built 2017-01-13)

SmartClient Version: v11.0p_2017-01-11/Pro Deployment (built 2017-01-11)

Best regards,

Dejan

[Isomorphic]

This still isn't even close to minimal - if it wasn't clear, a minimal test case would involve just enough of a bean structure to show a misbehaving valueXPath. In this case it could probably be one .ds.xml and a couple of beans with just a couple of properties; it can probably all be done in one server-side .java file using inner classes. Aside from just being the standard way to report a bug, this would also keep you from having to upload a dozen files, populate unrelated fields, etc - simpler for both of us.

We can still potentially look at the test case as it stands, but not being minimal, it receives much lower priority.

Also, you previously said that the problem could not be reproduced with getProperties(). So in this test case, if you try calling getProperties() on your bean structure, and then print out the result via DataTools.prettyPrint() (which is pretty close to JSON), do you see the data structure you'd like to see delivered to the client?

Also, if you set dropExtraFields="false" on your DataSources, does that correct the problem?

[dsijakovic]

Hi,
getProperties() on bean structure and pretty print is good. Everything there.
Drop extra fields does not correct the problem.
I've created one java file with bean structure. Removed all unnecessary fields from beans and Datasources in ds-dmi example.

Because main issue here is Nested datasource fields with multiple="true" and valueXPath, i think that you can't reproduce issue without more datasource files:

<field name="items" type="Item" multiple="true" valueXPath="items/item"></field>

DataSourceLoader in DataSourceDMI.html:

 <script src="dsdmi/sc/DataSourceLoader?dataSource=supplyItem,supplyItemDMI,Contract,Item,TimeSeries,KeyValueOfdateTimedouble"></script>

Part to call fetch operation on Contract datasource from onModuleLoad() method is the same as in the post #17

Differences in RPC tab between 5.0 and 6.0
5.0:

 
items:[
                {
                    days:[
                        "Monday", 
                        "Saturday"
                    ], 
                    timeSeries:{
                        seriesType:"Min60", 
                        values:[
                            {
                                value:34.67, 
                                key:"2017-02-01T22:33:16.257"
                            }, 
                            {
                                value:34.67, 
                                key:"2017-02-01T22:33:16.257"
                            }
                        ]
                    }
                }, 
                {
                    days:[
                        "Monday", 
                        "Saturday"
                    ], 
                    timeSeries:{
                        seriesType:"Min60", 
                        values:[
                            {
                                value:800, 
                                key:"2017-02-01T22:33:16.257"
                            }, 
                            {
                                value:800, 
                                key:"2017-02-01T22:33:16.257"
                            }
                        ]
                    }
                }
            ]

6.0:

items:[
                {
                    timeSeries:{
                        values:null
                    }
                }, 
                {
                    timeSeries:{
                        values:null
                    }
                }
            ]

Best regards,
Dejan

[dsijakovic]

Is this good test case?

Should it be more simplified to get higher priority?
Thanks,

Dejan

[dsijakovic]

Hi Isomorphic, do you have anything on this? Or any info when it will be looked at?
We purchased 6.0 version and now can't upgrade to it because of this issue. Any info from your side would be very helpful.

Thanks.

[Isomorphic]

As the earlier comment stated, this is queued to be looked at behind paid support.

[dsijakovic]

It's been a month since first post in this topic.
Did you noticed new test case in post #19 (5 files) that require 3 copy paste operations and run to see the problem in framework?
I'm a PRO user, purchased two SmartGWT Pro (2.5 and 6.0) licences already.
Do you have any information where in the queue is my test case and are we talking about days,weeks or months to be looked at?

Best regards
Dejan

[Isomorphic]

An engineer has started looking at this issue, we will update this thread when there is more to say

[Isomorphic]

We have just committed a fix for this problem. Please try your use cases with tomorrow's 6.0 or 6.1 builds (those dated February 23) and let us know if you still see an issue

[dsijakovic]

Issue fixed! Everything works now as expected. Thank you Isomorphic, great job.

Blama You were right about encoding problem. I've set -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 and issue with encoding is also gone.

Thanks Isomorphic and Blama for your help. Have a nice day :-)

Best regards,

Dejan