Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Copy assotiation type don´t work correctly in 5.0.2 #132

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 16, 2015 · 7 comments
Closed

Copy assotiation type don´t work correctly in 5.0.2 #132

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 16, 2015 · 7 comments

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Copy assotiation type in 
2.
3.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
A new association that I can modify(change names,...) while others remain
without change.
It seems that the copy isn´t complete and part of it "is" the original
association. The problem dissapear when I delete the copy and do it again
as a new assotiation.

Thanks,

Please use labels and text to provide additional information.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mjcolmen...@gmail.com on 23 Sep 2009 at 11:29

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand this error report. What tool were you 
using? When you say "copy association type", what action are you actually 
performing, and where? If you can provide more detail we should be able to fix 
this.

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2009 at 8:36

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

I´ll try to explain better. I'm using Ontopia 5.0.2 release.
In Ontopoly:
In a topic map, I choose an assotiation that already has been created (attached 
file
pantalla1). After that I get a copy by clicking the button "copy", at the right 
side
of the screen, with "Create new Association type" on top (attached file 
pantalla2).
In this new association, I may modify name and roles, used by, ...etc, to made a
really new association. But it isn´nt new. It seem that a link remains between 
the
old and new (the copy) assotiation.
Thanks again

Original comment by mjcolmen...@gmail.com on 13 Oct 2009 at 9:11

Attachments:

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

I tried this myself now, and while it seems like the fields on the association 
type 
itself, such as name, comment, and description can be edited just fine, I found 
that 
deleting the roles from the copied association type also deleted them from the 
original. So there is definitely a bug here.

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2009 at 9:53

  • Changed state: Accepted

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2009 at 9:54

  • Added labels: Component-Ontopoly

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

The copy operation does not take into account that some of the characteristics 
of 
the association type (this applies to other types as well) are really meant to 
be 
used by only a single topic. A shallow copy of the association type's 
characteristics does not really work in this situation. A deep copy is 
neccessary if 
we want to support copying of association types.

We have to options: 1) disable the Copy button 2) implement deep copying that 
also 
duplicates the associated characteristics (e.g. the referenced field-definition 
topics).

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2009 at 6:03

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

I'd be just as happy to disable the button, personally. I don't think copying 
association types is a very useful thing to be doing in most cases. Just about 
everything will have to be redefined for the new association type, anyway. In 
most 
cases, at least.

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2009 at 6:11

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

Fixed by revision 637.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:48

  • Changed state: Fixed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant