[Bug]: Parsing error in web-ifc when encountering * in IFC file

[powerocean]

What happened?

Description

I encountered an issue with web-ifc where it fails to correctly parse IFC files containing the * symbol in certain fields. According to the IFC standard, * is a valid placeholder for an undefined value, but web-ifc does not seem to handle it properly. This leads to incorrect parsing results, especially when parsing relationships such as IFCRELAGGREGATES.
Here is an example of a problematic IFC snippet:
#1 = IFCRELAGGREGATES('BohvtDLAfw6mzz2U8Z3f8j', *, $, $, #2, (#12));
and
#13 = IFCRELCONTAINEDINSPATIALSTRUCTURE('Ey9YGvNEs4iJHMHGM1vuJq', *, $, $, (#14), #12);

Expected Behavior

• The RelatingObject should be parsed as: { "value": 2, "type": 5 }
• The RelatedObjects should be parsed as: [{ "value": 12, "type": 5 }]

Actual Behavior

Due to the presence of *, the parser incorrectly returns:

• RelatingObject : { "value": undefined, "type": 5 }
• RelatedObjects: []

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Use the following IFC snippet (or a file containing it) with web-ifc:
   #1 = IFCRELAGGREGATES('BohvtDLAfw6mzz2U8Z3f8j', *, $, $, #2, (#12));
2. Attempt to parse the file using web-ifc.
3. Check the parsed values of RelatingObject and RelatedObjects.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Modify the parser to treat * as a $ value or equivalent during processing.
2. Ensure that subsequent fields are correctly parsed even when * is encountered.

Version

0.0.65

What browsers are you seeing the problem on?

No response

Relevant log output

ERROR: Invalid IFC Line:2
Uncaught TypeError: v[7]?.map is not a function

Anything else?

snippet.zip

[beachtom]

So * should only be used if the class of the object has set that property to a derived property. These should parse - if they don't please let me know

So looking at your example file its use in IFCSIUnit is valid - but its use in IFCBuilding and the others is incorrect - and they should be set to $

[powerocean]

Okay, I understand. I found that this IFC file can be parsed by BIMvision correctly, and I guess it might have implemented some special logic to ignore this IFC syntax error.