rtiddsprototyper bind_complex_member error

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 06/15/2022
Posts: 5
rtiddsprototyper bind_complex_member error

We're trying to use the rtiddsprototyper to publish/subscribe messages. We often get the error below and we don't know what it means.

Does anyone have any insight into what's causing this problem?

DDS_DynamicData_bind_complex_member:field <no name> (id=3) not found
DDS_PrototyperConstraintEnforcer_processComplexMemberI: Bind dynamic data complex member error
DDS_PrototyperConstraintEnforcer_processComplexMemberI: Process complex member error
DDS_PrototyperConstraintEnforcer_processComplexMemberI: Process complex member error
NddsProtyperAgent::setupPublications: Set dynamic data key content error 0
NddsProtyperAgent::startApplication: Start publication error
NddsProtyperAgent::run: Start application error (code: 1)
DDS_DomainParticipantFactory_deleteI:!delete factory instance: outstanding participant(s)
DDSDomainParticipantFactory::delete_instanceI:!delete participant factory
DDSDomainParticipantFactory::finalize_instance:!delete participant factory
finalize_instance error 4
Organization:
Howard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 11/29/2012
Posts: 381

Hmm, "often get the error" but not all of the time?

I'm guessing it's related to the XML definition of the datatype in XML versus how your RTI Prototyper script is trying to access the data in the Lua script.

If it's readily reproducible, I would try to figure out which line in your Lua script is causing the error.  It should be a line that's trying to set a value in a variable that's going to be sent by a Writer.

And then see if the data element (which is likely some member of a substructure in a complex datatype) actually exists in the XML definition.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 06/15/2022
Posts: 5

Thanks Howard. When I say "we often get the error", I don't mean it's intermittant. Some of the XML message definitions give this error and some do not. Those that do, always do.

I'd trace it to a field definition, but <no name> (id=3) means nothing to me. It seems to think there's a field without a name, but they all have names.