That raises an interesting question: does the code-to-model synchronization detect the case were the user adds an override of an action in a subclass, to create the corresponding redefinition in the subclass capsule/state machine? Otherwise, the user might be inclined to create a blank redefinition in the model then switch over to CDT to fill it in. Although, the user could just as well add a TODO comment to effect the redefinition.
However that may be, my main hesitation is that I’m uncertain about interpreting the user’s intent when clearing out the text in the Code Snippet View as trying to exclude/un-define the behaviour. It could just be an intermediate action, so this side-effect of exclusion may not be appropriate. It certainly isn’t necessary in the way that it is necessary to create a re-definition in order to edit the inherited snippet.
We could have the tool prompt the user to ask whether the action should just be excluded when the snippet is cleared, with of course the “don’t ask me again” toggle to remember the decision. It seems to me appropriate to ask the user’s intention and let her decide what she wants her edit to mean.
On Mar 13, 2017, 12:10 -0400, Peter Cigéhn <peter.cigehn@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
Hi,
Regarding this about getting an "empty" opaque behavior, the user would have to enter something into the code snippet view in the first place to get an opaque behavior to be created in the first place. Which then can be edited in the CDT editor on the generated code (but you need to generate code first to do that).
So I am not really sure that I see this case of "leaving an empty opaque behavior" if the user explicitly decides to empty the code snippet view (when it already have had something).
/Peter Cigéhn
_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev