message constructor parameter differences about quickfixn HOT 5 CLOSED

What version of fix are you looking at in the reference example? I checked version 4.2, and it looks like the ctors are identical. What fix version that doesn't require a symbol for exec report?

from quickfixn.

Fix4.3 and up.

from quickfixn.

I think the direction we'll go on this is to declare the above example as a non-issue.

From the FIX4.3 dictionary, the Instrument Component is required for Exec Reports

 <component name="Instrument" required="Y" />

The Instrument component requires a Symbol field

    <component name="Instrument">
      <field name="Symbol" required="Y" />
      <field name="SymbolSfx" required="N" />
      <field name="SecurityID" required="N" />
      <field name="SecurityIDSource" required="N" />
      <group name="NoSecurityAltID" required="N">
...

A required field of a required component should be required in the containing message.

However, say another message defines an Instrument Component but does not require it. In this case, should the required component fields be required in the message? Such a scenario exists with the SecurityDefinition message defined in 4.3

from quickfixn.

Calling it a non-issue sounds good. As you said earlier, it's really more a bug with QF/C++ and QF/J.

Regarding your SecurityDefinition example, I'd say no. The constructor should require only the fields needed to make a minimally valid message. If the component is not required, then the component's fields should be entirely ignored.

from quickfixn.

Ok, Looks like [master c148763] addresses the non-required component/required component field concern.

from quickfixn.