Namespace show all

[amolenaar]

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update (formatting, local variables)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• Documentation content changes

What is the current behavior?

Issue Number: #334

What is the new behavior?

All namespaced information is shown.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

[amolenaar]

The models shows all elements, which is something that needs fixing:

[danyeaw]

I really like this approach. I think autoformatting the name using the umlfmt module and removing the icon were nice touches.

A few things I have been thinking about:

1. Should we have tools in the tool palette under the blocks section to create a Composition Relationship and Aggregation Relationship directly as a shortcut to creating an association, adding navigation, and setting shared or composite aggregation?
2. Should we automatically name the Property of these types of relationships? For example, I know some of the other tools name the property name the same as the class name, except as lower camel case instead of upper camel case like the class name.

Right now if you create an unnamed association it just shows up as a blank row in the namespace:

[amolenaar]

1. Should we have tools in the tool palette under the blocks section to create a Composition Relationship and Aggregation Relationship directly as a shortcut to creating an association, adding navigation, and setting shared or composite aggregation?

This makes sense, I think, since now we need to head over to the editor to change the association ends.

2. Should we automatically name the Property of these types of relationships? For example, I know some of the other tools name the property name the same as the class name, except as lower camel case instead of upper camel case like the class name.

For composite and aggregate associations it makes sense, for sure. Since there already is this directional aspect to it, with navigability.

Right now if you create an unnamed association it just shows up as a blank row in the namespace:

Hmm.. It should at least show something. Even <None> would be better than nothing.

[amolenaar]

We still need to deal with relationships, too.

[amolenaar]

I made attribute formatting a little more liberal, now it will render a string, even when there is no name for the property. Also it will parse associations with a : Type defined and just ignore that type (needed for editing in the tree view).

[amolenaar]

Let's handle relationships in a different PR.

[danyeaw]

Looks great!