Does anyone have any problem with my change in issue 6088 (rev 18399)
to disable enforcement of WFR UML 1.4 section 2.10.3.4 #3
The WFR is described as this
// Collaboration WFR UML 1.4 section 2.10.3.4 #3
// [3] If a ClassifierRole or an AssociationRole does not have a name,
// then it should be the only one with a particular base.
// [...]
// and
// (p.oclIsKindOf (AssociationRole) implies
// p.name = '' implies
// self.allContents->forAll ( q |
// q.oclIsKindOf(AssociationRole) implies
// (p.oclAsType(AssociationRole).base =
// q.oclAsType(AssociationRole).base implies
// p = q) ) )
// )
The result of this is that it is not possible to drag a second class
(that creates an unnamed classifier role) onto the diagram as both
those classifier roles would have the same base class.
More typically for naming we tend to use critics as we have no way
of.later stopping the user from changing the name to empty and
breaking this rule once again.
We also tend to allow the user flexibility in the order in which they
do things (e.g. create new classifier roles, add bases and then name
them).
Is there some reason why we are trying to enforce more strictly in this case?
If I must do so I could auto-name classifier-roles as they are dragged in.
Regards
Bob
------------------------------------------------------
http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2610719
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail:
[[email protected]].
To be allowed to post to the list contact the mailing list moderator, email:
[[email protected]]
