{{Quickfixn}} ValidateUserDefinedFields=N does not work

[Grant Birchmeier]

No, that is not correct, actually.  I feel like you only read the first
half of my email.  The solution to your problem was in the second half.

5000-9999 only means that these values will not be used by the official FIX
spec fields.  Counterparties are free to invent fields and assign them to
those tags.  Aside from that, they are just like any other field.  *This
whole concept has nothing to do with your actual problem.*

The real takeaway here is that your DataDictionary xml file must be updated
to match the interface you are trying to connect to.  As I said before, *you
are getting "tag not defined" because your data dictionary does not have
1003 defined in it, or 1003 is not specified as belonging to message type
AE i**n your DD**.   **This is your problem!!!*

Again, have you read
http://quickfixn.org/tutorial/custom-fields-groups-and-messages.html ?

*You MUST understand the DD xml file.  You MUST make sure it matches your
counterparty's connection.  You need to learn this right now to be a
successful FIX developer.*

In practice, the ValidateUserDefinedFields setting is pretty dumb; if your
DD is correct, there is no reason for this to be =N.

After you have read the If you have any questions about the DD, please ask.

-Grant


On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Timbaliuc, Veaceslav <
Veaceslav.Timbaliuc at cibc.com> wrote:

> Hi Grant,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your reply. I was not aware that 5000-9999 was reserved for
> UserDefinedFields. Now my issue makes complete sense. So, I have to to have
> all fields under 5000 in my data dictionary if the FIX message I’m received
> has them.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Veaceslav
>
>
>
> *From:* Quickfixn [mailto:quickfixn-bounces at lists.quickfixn.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Grant Birchmeier
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2016 4:38 PM
> *To:* Mailing list for QuickFIX/n
> *Subject:* Re: {{Quickfixn}} ValidateUserDefinedFields=N does not work
>
>
>
> That's not what UserDefinedFields means.
>
>
>
> Per FIX spec, tag numbers 5000-9999 are reserved for UserDefinedFields.
> Tag 58, of course, is outside of that range, and is a standard FIX field
> that is definitely not user-defined.
>
>
>
> You are getting "tag not defined" because your data dictionary does not
> have 1003 defined in it, or 1003 is not specified as belonging to message
> type AE.
>
>
>
> Have you read
> http://quickfixn.org/tutorial/custom-fields-groups-and-messages.html ?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Timbaliuc, Veaceslav <
> Veaceslav.Timbaliuc at cibc.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> When I set ValidateUserDefinedFields=N in my configuration file,
> QuickFix\N seems to ignore this. I am writing an initiator, then when I do
> a trade on a fix session, my initiator sends a 35=3 message, with 58=Tag
> not defined for this message type371=1003372=AE373=2.
>
>
>
> Why am I getting “tag not defined messages”? I thought that was the point
> of ValidateUserDefinedFields? Has anyone ever run into this problem?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> *Veaceslav Timbaliuc*
>
> Advisory Application Developer
>
> Global Derivatives Technology
>
> CIBC - Wholesale Banking Technology
>
> Tel: 416-304-2327
>
> veaceslav.timbaliuc at cibc.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfixn mailing list
> Quickfixn at lists.quickfixn.com
> http://lists.quickfixn.com/listinfo.cgi/quickfixn-quickfixn.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Grant Birchmeier
>
> *Connamara Systems, LLC*
>
> *Made-To-Measure Trading Solutions.*
>
> Exactly what you need. No more. No less.
>
> http://connamara.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfixn mailing list
> Quickfixn at lists.quickfixn.com
> http://lists.quickfixn.com/listinfo.cgi/quickfixn-quickfixn.com
>
>


-- 
Grant Birchmeier
*Connamara Systems, LLC*
*Made-To-Measure Trading Solutions.*
Exactly what you need. No more. No less.
http://connamara.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quickfixn.com/pipermail/quickfixn-quickfixn.com/attachments/20160317/259bddc8/attachment-0001.htm>