Eclipse Community Forums: Epsilon » [EVL] Epsilon validation for multiple diagrams on a single model?!

Home » Modeling » Epsilon » [EVL] Epsilon validation for multiple diagrams on a single model?!(validate diagram that does not correspond to the root of a model)

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

[EVL] Epsilon validation for multiple diagrams on a single model?! [message #736829]

Fri, 14 October 2011 11:17

Hristina Moneva

Messages: 31
Registered: October 2009

Member

Hi all,

I am trying to use Epsilon Validation on my GMF diagrams, but I run into a problem...

The situation is as follows: I have a single model and two diagrams (using shared editing domain). One of the diagrams corresponds to the root of my model and represents only a few elements. From there a sub-diagram ca be initiated that visualizes but part of the full model. When I add the validation, it works fine on the main diagram (no exceptions raised, but I do not have any validation there as well) but it always raises exception on the sub-diagram... The exception is:

!ENTRY nl.esi.design.diagram.view 4 0 2011-10-14 13:10:56.384
!MESSAGE Validation failed
!STACK 0
java.lang.NullPointerException
	at org.eclipse.epsilon.evl.emf.validation.EvlValidator.validate(EvlValidator.java:76)
	at org.eclipse.epsilon.evl.emf.validation.CompositeEValidator.validate(CompositeEValidator.java:44)
	at org.eclipse.emf.ecore.util.Diagnostician.validate(Diagnostician.java:165)
	at org.eclipse.emf.ecore.util.Diagnostician.validate(Diagnostician.java:143)
	at org.eclipse.emf.ecore.util.Diagnostician.validate(Diagnostician.java:114)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.part.ValidateAction.runEMFValidator(ValidateAction.java:159)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.part.ValidateAction.validate(ValidateAction.java:173)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.part.ValidateAction.access$0(ValidateAction.java:167)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.part.ValidateAction$2.run(ValidateAction.java:144)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.providers.DesignValidationProvider$1.run(DesignValidationProvider.java:62)
	at org.eclipse.emf.transaction.impl.TransactionalEditingDomainImpl.runExclusive(TransactionalEditingDomainImpl.java:328)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.providers.DesignValidationProvider.runWithConstraints(DesignValidationProvider.java:70)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.part.ValidateAction.runValidation(ValidateAction.java:141)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.part.ValidateAction$1.run(ValidateAction.java:89)
	at org.eclipse.ui.actions.WorkspaceModifyDelegatingOperation.execute(WorkspaceModifyDelegatingOperation.java:69)
	at org.eclipse.ui.actions.WorkspaceModifyOperation$1.run(WorkspaceModifyOperation.java:106)
	at org.eclipse.core.internal.resources.Workspace.run(Workspace.java:1975)
	at org.eclipse.ui.actions.WorkspaceModifyOperation.run(WorkspaceModifyOperation.java:118)
	at nl.esi.design.diagram.view.part.ValidateAction.run(ValidateAction.java:92)
	at org.eclipse.jface.action.Action.runWithEvent(Action.java:498)
	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.handleWidgetSelection(ActionContributionItem.java:584)
	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem.access$2(ActionContributionItem.java:501)
	at org.eclipse.jface.action.ActionContributionItem$5.handleEvent(ActionContributionItem.java:411)
	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84)
	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1053)
	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.runDeferredEvents(Display.java:4066)
	at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3657)
	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:2640)
	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:2604)
	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$4(Workbench.java:2438)
	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$7.run(Workbench.java:671)
	at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:332)
	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:664)
	at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149)
	at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.application.IDEApplication.start(IDEApplication.java:115)
	at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:196)
	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:110)
	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:79)
	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:369)
	at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:179)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
	at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
	at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source)
	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:620)
	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:575)
	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1408)
	at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1384)

When I was debugging and looking at the code, the only thing that I can find "wrong" is that the Epsilon Validation assumes that it takes diagram that corresponds to the root of the model, see EvlValidator class, validate(EClass eClass, EObject eObject, DiagnosticChain diagnostics, Map<Object, Object> context) method, lines 69-74:

		// If it is the root that is validated
		// validate the whole resource and cache
		// the results
		if (eObject.eContainer() == null) {
			results = validate(eObject.eResource());
		}

The exception raised is just the next line:

		Collection<EvlUnsatisfiedConstraint> unsatisfiedConstraints = results.get(eObject);

The problem is that "results" is null.

That assumption (check) would never be correct for diagrams that do not start from the root of a model as well! Even if not multiple diagrams for a single model...

I am not sure if my understanding is correct! But if yes, do you plan to remove this check and enable validating "partial" models?!

That can be also beneficial for cases where not the full model has to be validated. I believe that is very reasonable and required use case...

Looking forward you reply!

Greetings,
Hristina

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter