|5 min||Admin: Call plan||All|
Leader: Nigel; (Not available: Kam, Italo)
Leader: Kam; (Not available: Andrea)
Leader: Scott; (Not available: )
Leader: Andrea; (Not available: Kam (?), Scott (?), Italo) Potentially at an earlier time to accommodate ITU-T 13:30 - 14:30 CET (lunch)
Leader: Nigel; (Not available: Kam (?), Scott, Italo) Potentially at an earlier time to accommodate ITU-T 13:30 - 14:30 CET (lunch)
|min||Action items due/done||All|
IISOMI Action Items done or past due
The action above was not quite completed on the call. Assuming the Gendoc work is confirmed as complete the action can be closed.
|The||Navigable attribute to ExtendedComposite||All|
Scott to provide gendoc script.
Bernd provided an update in the UML guidlines.
Not navigable from the class.
The grouping extended class1 is not visible, but the attributes from ExtendingClass1 are in a grouping that is used in classA
Bernd noted that the diagram has changed to remove the class navigability (black circle on the association arrow)
Extending class may be 0..1.
Discussion that end owner must be association for both ends.
The extending class is abstract.
Scott showed two examples...
Bernd noted that there should be a condition on the 0..1 .
Nigel noted that as an aside the the condition is coded by the uml-yang tool as an if-feature which is a problem.
Scott ran gendoc to validate the expected output.
Scott ran uml-yang tool.
Andrea noted that the current translation works.
Nigel noted that the current extended composite association is navigable.
Scott changed the example to add classifier navigability and then re-ran the mapping.
In the UML an attribute now appears in the classifier.
Discussion on what is actually required.
Noted that the current experimental model did not have root element and hence would not generate the containers.
multiplicity of 1..1 makes a container.
There is no container for the extending-class6 (this is correct).
A classifier based extended composite association provides the right results.
Agreed that the UML guidelines need to show both the UML form that generates the correct Yang (with the unnecessary attribute in the UML) and the correct UML form with extensive explanation of what should be used when Yang is required and why the extra attribute does not appear.
Scott ran gendoc, but the output appeared to no longer be correct.
Scott will retry the after the call.
No new actions were created but the existing action was kept open with the date unchanged.
This topic is added to IISOMI Discussions / Papyrus Guidelines related items / Navigable attribute to ExtendedComposite
Coding of target path
IISOMI Discussions / Papyrus Guidelines related items / Coding of target path
2022-08-12: no discussion, deferred to next week.