Add CallBehaviorAction #2495
Add CallBehaviorAction #2495
Conversation
|
This is an awesome contribution, thanks @marek-piirikivi! This could be a follow-up PR, but do you think there should be a way to go to the selected Behavior from the CallBehavior? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Excellent!
The Invocation Actions diagram also looks really nice.
gaphor/UML/actions/action.py
Outdated
| def name(self): | ||
| """Name conforms to UML2.5.1 16.3.4.1 naming description""" | ||
| if self.subject.behavior and not self.subject.name: | ||
| return self.subject.behavior.name | ||
| return self.subject.name or "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One thing to improve it even more is to move this code to a format function in gaphor/UML/umlfmt.py. Then the activity name will also be used as fallback in the model browser.
Just noticed this feature is not mentioned in the documentation 🙈
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just noticed that there is a slight conflict with the name formatting when looking at SysMLv1.6. SysML requires behavior name, and optionally you can also include the action name. How should we proceed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can keep is as is for now.
@amolenaar I tried to be as authentic to the UML2.5.1 document and capture everything that seemed relevant. I noticed that Action itself already defines relationship to the InputPin and OutputPin; and so does CallAction+InvocationAction. So, the references are now in uml.py duplicated. 🤔 I am not sure how to address this; or what to do in this instance. Seems as if it is just redefinition of the same thing to use different names for the same thing - in CallAction context, all input pins should be called arguments. What do you think? |
Yes. I think so. It would be a good follow-up. |
I have no clear strategy for those. As long as a relation is not actively used by the application I nowadays tend to leave it out. The UML meta model is not always consistent. Often a value subsets a value that is not a derived unions; something that our Gaphor model cannot deal with and will ignore. |
marek-piirikivi
force-pushed
the
call_behavior_action
branch
from
d23c3df
to
185a849
Compare
|
Let's call it a day and merge this. A really well executed PR. Thanks @marek-piirikivi! 🍻 |
danyeaw
added
feature
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: #2464
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information