We have a failing test which is most likely due to my removing this WFR. I'll remove the test if/when we have some agreement on my removal of this WFR enforcement.
Bob On 19 May 2010 08:27, Bob Tarling <[email protected]> wrote: > 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=2610830 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]]
