{{Quickfixn}} ValidateUserDefinedFields=N does not work

[Grant Birchmeier]

Ah, ok, I think I see how I misinterpreted your reply.

I'm glad you solved it!

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Timbaliuc, Veaceslav <
Veaceslav.Timbaliuc at cibc.com> wrote:

> Hi Grant,
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your reply, it was very clear. My problem was that I
> hadn’t defined tag 1003 in my data dictionary for that connection. I
> mistakenly thought that setting ValidateUserDefinedFields=N would mean I
> wouldn’t have to do this, but that flag only applies to tags 5000-9999. I
> have since defined tag 1003 in my DD, and added it the message I was
> expecting it to be in (trade capture report). Everything works well now. I
> previously read your whole email and understood this, but unfortunately I
> did not make myself clear about that conclusion in my previous email.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Veaceslav
>
>
>
> *From:* Quickfixn [mailto:quickfixn-bounces at lists.quickfixn.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Grant Birchmeier
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:57 PM
>
> *To:* Mailing list for QuickFIX/n
> *Subject:* Re: {{Quickfixn}} ValidateUserDefinedFields=N does not work
>
>
>
> 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 in 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160330/c6d06c60/attachment-0001.htm>