We totally agree that using the value from the first instance for all other instances is bad behavior. As Düscha said, we have to look into the code a little bit deeper. (Unfortunately the colleague who developed this has retired in the meantime.) So, I am sure this will be fixed in the next version.
As I understood, you never had the requirement that elements of the structure should be allowed to be missing in the telegram, but only the number of array elements (i.e. complete struct instances) should be variable. Is that correct? I also feel this makes more sense than allowing just any random struct element to be missing, because in this case it is impossible to find out what elements were actually received from MES and which ones just have default (or because of the current bug even wrong) values.
Is anyone else using the AcceptIncompStructArray feature? Everyone is welcome to share their opinion about this here!
... View more