| Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Update of the profile and update version numbers |
|
Hi, I pushed a new gerrit to add the support of the new DSML plugin version[1]. The stereotype <<MessageHandling>> is also
in the Mars maintenance branch, so I could apply it to the UML-RT and UML-RT StateMachines profile. The new messages do not have the ‘not valid’ at the end. I added new tests on the validation for the capsulepart multiplicities
to be sure the rule was well written, because I had doubt on non-integer based multiplicity compare. I could also add a check on the message being presented to the user, to be sure we have no regression in this area. Here is a snapshot from the test model
for validation rule, with a compare between 2 upper/lower values being LiteralStrings “3” and “15”.
Regards Rémi [1]
https://git.eclipse.org/r/62335 ------------------------------------------------------- Rémi SCHNEKENBURGER +33 (0)1 69 08 48 48 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de Peter Cigéhn Hi, I have tried to look at changes in Gerrit, but I am not sure I can see the change related to the discussion in the following Bugzilla: Ansgar have made some improvements to the DMSL Validation tooling regarding how the messages gets formatted. I would have expected the new <<MessageHandling>> stereotype to have been applied, with the property "messageMode"
set to "NameIsMessage" (if I understood Ansgar correctly regarding how this new feature should be used for the UML-RT profile). But maybe that new feature is only available in the DSML Validation tooling on the Neon track? The current naming of the actual error message with the "... not valid" is rather confusing (as discussed also in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=464387#c14). So I was just expecting the improvement Ansgar made to be included in this update of the profile. But maybe we have to wait until we are on the Neon track to get these improvements included in Papyrus-RT? One very minor comment: I am not used to write OCL so I am not sure what conventions normally are used. But I can see that you have written the multiplicity constraint for capsule parts without spaces around ">", whereas
Bran in his proposal had spaces. I guess these are things that an OCL expert will find "annoying" if the convention normally is to use spaces around ">" (you have used spaces around "="). /Peter Cigéhn On 9 December 2015 at 12:24, SCHNEKENBURGER Remi 211865 <Remi.SCHNEKENBURGER@xxxxxx> wrote:
|
