As a user, I want to validate that the field_number values are sequential and match the label specification for maximum number of fields

[msbentley]

Motivation

...so that we ensure when field_number values are defined (which are optional) they are valid according to the SR definition

Additional Information

All of the classes inheriting Field contain the optional field_number attribute. Currently it looks like this is not sanity checked.

The attribute is defined as:

The field_number attribute provides the position of a field, within a series of fields, counting from 1. If two fields within a record are physically separated by one or more groups, they have consecutive field numbers; the fields within the intervening group(s) are numbered separately. Fields within a group separated by one or more (sub)groups, will also have consecutive field numbers.

1. Products with some fields including this and some not are allowed - this is fine, per standard, but I wonder if a warning shouldn't be given?

2. More importantly, no error is raised when

• field_number is greater than the maximum number of fields expected from the definition of the record
• if the field number "misses" values (e.g. 1, 2, 5, 6)

📜 To Reproduce

• Validate the attached test product - this includes "missing" field numbers, and values that are > number of fields.

🕵️ Expected behavior

The user is notified that the field numbering does not match the standards, and an appropriate warning/error is given.

📚 Version of Software Used

2.0.4

🩺 Test Data / Additional context

field_number.zip

🖥 System Info

• OS: linux
• Version: ubuntu 20.04

---

Engineering Details

if Field.field_number exists
   check the field number is sequential
   check the field number < maximum number of fields as defined by the label