| Data Object visibility [message #1066188] |
Mon, 01 July 2013 09:09  |
Hrvoje Krot Messages: 7 Registered: June 2013 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi,
I have a bpmn file with a lane and other BPMN components including Data Object component. The trouble is in a strange behaviour which manifests itself after I reopen the file which contains Data Object component. Sometimes some Data Object component is not shown "on" the Lane component (in which way was originaly been placed), but hidden "bellow" Lane component.
What might be the reason for this kind of behaviour, and is there a way to keep Data Object in its place?
|
|
|
| Re: Data Object visibility [message #1066191 is a reply to message #1066188] |
Mon, 01 July 2013 09:28   |
|
Data Objects are subclasses of FlowElement, but a Lane may only contain FlowNodes (also a subclass of FlowElement), therefore a Lane may not contain Data Objects. The fact that a Data Object appears to move along inside a Lane when you first create it by dropping it onto a Lane, is actually a bug 
Can you please file a bug report for this behavior?
Thanks for testing!
Bob
|
|
|
|
| Re: Data Object visibility [message #1072451 is a reply to message #1066198] |
Mon, 22 July 2013 15:53   |
Poissy B. Messages: 30 Registered: June 2012 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Bob,
I have the same problem on a collaboration pool. When I re-opened my model the process disappeared behind the pool.
Do you want me to paste the model here?
In the mean time, do you know if there is a workaround (like editing the xml file) to fix the problem and continue working on the model?
Thanks!
EDIT: I tried to move stuff around in the BPMDI element (I moved a pool declaration up) and the problem is fixed (temporarily at least).
[Updated on: Mon, 22 July 2013 15:57] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| Re: Data Object visibility [message #1072761 is a reply to message #1072451] |
Tue, 23 July 2013 08:47   |
|
Hmm...instead of:
"When I re-opened my model the process disappeared behind the pool"
did you mean to say this instead?
"When I re-opened my model the Data Object disappeared behind the pool"
Again, a "pool" as you know, is a BPMN2 Participant element which can not be a container for Data Objects so, technically this is not unexpected behavior.
That said, I can make some adjustments to the editor so that Pools and Lanes are always pushed to the bottom of the Z-order.
Can you please file a bugzilla for this enhancement request so we can track this? I would like to publish a new build (which will be version 0.2.7) by the end of this week, so if you can file this enhancement request soon-ish, it will go into that build.
Thanks!
Bob
|
|
|
|
| Re: Data Object visibility [message #1072882 is a reply to message #1072845] |
Tue, 23 July 2013 14:01   |
|
wellll...yes and no 
The Participant has a Process reference which, in theory, could change. This would mean that the entire contents of the "pool" would have to be swapped if the Process reference is changed. I'm not 100% convinced (yet) that this is the right thing to do, and for that reason the Participant.processRef is not changeable directly in the editor.
But I concede your point that Data Objects need to be rendered as contained children of pools. Please go ahead and file that bug report, and we'll try to address it as quickly as possible.
Thanks!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Data Object visibility [message #1072972 is a reply to message #1072918] |
Tue, 23 July 2013 17:21   |
|
|
Hmmm, that sounds like an omission. It should work the same for any BPMN2 diagram type. Unless of course I forgot to add DataObjectReference to the <modelEnablements> list in the plugin for Collaboration diagrams. I'll take a look - should be an easy fix.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Data Object visibility [message #1074038 is a reply to message #1073989] |
Thu, 25 July 2013 21:13   |
|
Funny you should mention this, because I came across the same dilemma I decided that as long as references to DataObject don't cross file boundaries, they should be allowed; that is a DataObjectReference defined in one Process may reference DataObjects defined in any other Process.
Make sense? That's what I thought - I'm not sure either but that's how it is implemented at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01979 seconds