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

Null data acess reference in SharedDataAction objects #2372

Closed
Etienne13 opened this issue Jun 24, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2373 or #2509
Closed

Null data acess reference in SharedDataAction objects #2372

Etienne13 opened this issue Jun 24, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2373 or #2509
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@Etienne13
Copy link
Contributor

Etienne13 commented Jun 24, 2020

Summary

Although the type checking resolves the data access reference of SharedDataAction objects, their valuation appears to be null at the end of the execution of the BA plugin.

Expected and Current Behavior

After parsing and resolving, a BA subclauses, SharedDataAction objects should either raise an error because the data access cannot be resolved, or the data access should be registered in the SharedDataAction object. Using the following example, there is no resolution error for the data access but it does not appear in the SharedDataAction object.

package test_lock_actions
public
	
	thread th
		features
			d: requires data access dt;
		annex behavior_specification {**
			states
				s1: initial complete final state;
			transitions
				s1 -[on dispatch]-> s1
					{
						computation(1 ms..2ms);
						d!<;
						computation(0 ms..2ms);
						d!>;
						computation(3ms..4ms)
					};
		**};
	end th;

	data dt	
	end dt;
	
end test_lock_actions;

Environment

  • OSATE Version: OSATE 2.7.1
  • Operating System: Linux, ubuntu
@Etienne13
Copy link
Contributor Author

Etienne13 commented Nov 8, 2020

Although this issue has been fixed for data accesses in lock actions, it was poorly tested for unlock actions and the issue remained in this case. I therefore reopen this issue and will propose a fix and some improvement of the corresponding test case very soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment