| [QVTo] Query about in/out/inout and check/enforce or create/append/update execution mode [message #546518] |
Tue, 13 July 2010 05:08  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi
I am not clear how the mode of transformation execution is controlled.
Sometimes my transformations fail unless the output is seeded.
Using the Helios Simpleuml_To_Rdb example, if run once it creates a
Model in /SimpleUML to RDB/Simpleuml_To_Rdb.rdb as might be expected.
If run again and again and again, it creates further Models (remember to
refresh the file to see the multiples). This seems odd, but nowhere is
there an explicit statement that the output is enforce.
If RDB/Simpleuml_To_Rdb.rdb is changed to make RDB an inout model, the
transformation fails if the output does not exist, but otherwise creates
multiple copies again and again and again.
In the absence of any control flags in the Run Configuration, I would
expect in->out to be a create/overwrite, and in->inout to be a
create/update. I would expect to need in,in->out to get create/append.
Am I missing something?
Regards
Ed Willink
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTo] Query about in/out/inout and check/enforce or create/append/update execution mode [message #547097 is a reply to message #546518] |
Thu, 15 July 2010 08:11  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Ed,
This is definitely a bug. The [out] direction is enforced old objects to
be discarded. Could you please raise bugzilla for that?
Regards,
Sergey
Ed Willink wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am not clear how the mode of transformation execution is controlled.
> Sometimes my transformations fail unless the output is seeded.
>
> Using the Helios Simpleuml_To_Rdb example, if run once it creates a
> Model in /SimpleUML to RDB/Simpleuml_To_Rdb.rdb as might be expected.
>
> If run again and again and again, it creates further Models (remember to
> refresh the file to see the multiples). This seems odd, but nowhere is
> there an explicit statement that the output is enforce.
>
> If RDB/Simpleuml_To_Rdb.rdb is changed to make RDB an inout model, the
> transformation fails if the output does not exist, but otherwise creates
> multiple copies again and again and again.
>
> In the absence of any control flags in the Run Configuration, I would
> expect in->out to be a create/overwrite, and in->inout to be a
> create/update. I would expect to need in,in->out to get create/append.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Regards
>
> Ed Willink
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTo] Query about in/out/inout and check/enforce or create/append/update execution mode [message #550524 is a reply to message #547097] |
Fri, 30 July 2010 12:24 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Sergey
(Bug 320010 raised for the rerun causing append.)
Now I want to execute in update mode. Is this supported?
(OMG QVT Issue raised on the very opaque and contradictory definitions
of "enforce", "checkonly" and MappingOperation.refinement.)
Regards
Ed Willink
On 15/07/2010 13:11, Sergey Boyko wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> This is definitely a bug. The [out] direction is enforced old objects to
> be discarded. Could you please raise bugzilla for that?
>
> Regards,
> Sergey
>
>
> Ed Willink wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I am not clear how the mode of transformation execution is controlled.
>> Sometimes my transformations fail unless the output is seeded.
>>
>> Using the Helios Simpleuml_To_Rdb example, if run once it creates a
>> Model in /SimpleUML to RDB/Simpleuml_To_Rdb.rdb as might be expected.
>>
>> If run again and again and again, it creates further Models (remember
>> to refresh the file to see the multiples). This seems odd, but nowhere
>> is there an explicit statement that the output is enforce.
>>
>> If RDB/Simpleuml_To_Rdb.rdb is changed to make RDB an inout model, the
>> transformation fails if the output does not exist, but otherwise
>> creates multiple copies again and again and again.
>>
>> In the absence of any control flags in the Run Configuration, I would
>> expect in->out to be a create/overwrite, and in->inout to be a
>> create/update. I would expect to need in,in->out to get create/append.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ed Willink
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04985 seconds
Home