Home » Modeling » Papyrus » How to open GMF Compare Viewer for merging
|
| Re: How to open GMF Compare Viewer for merging [message #1403847 is a reply to message #1403484] |
Mon, 28 July 2014 09:24   |
 Camille Letavernier
Messages: 952
Registered: February 2011 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Marc-Florian,
In theory, the EMF Compare editor works fine when used on *.uml, *.di and *.notation files (Or the top-level Papyrus pseudo-folder). The support for *.notation and *.uml is natively provided by EMF Compare, whereas the support for *.di comparison is provided by Papyrus/UML Compare.
Note that EMF Compare relies on Content Types to identify models, which means that if you changed your content-type definitions in your workspace settings, this may prevent the comparison from working properly. Also, the current version of EMF Compare doesn't work properly when partial/invalid EMF/UML models are used (e.g. if a library/profile is missing). The scope of the comparison is the current project, so, trying to compare a Papyrus model when you have an invalid (even unrelated) *.xmi model in the same project will most likely not work.
HTH,
Camille
Camille Letavernier
|
|
|
| Re: How to open GMF Compare Viewer for merging [message #1403891 is a reply to message #1403847] |
Mon, 28 July 2014 13:20 |
Marc-Florian Wendland
Messages: 83
Registered: January 2013 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Camille,
after setting the content type explicitly to .notation in the Preferences,
it worked as expected. Thanks for the hint.
I have encountered a different defect when playing around with branching and
merging. Everytime you merge with the content of a branch, the compare
editor finishes with an exception related to the textual compare annotations
in the XMI. See pictures 1-3. After manually removing the content within the
workspace annotations (see picture 4) the compare model can be calculated
without any problems.
The notation file seems a little bit more buggy, since the diagrams always
get corrupted when trying to merge. It can be corrected manually and then
merged as well, but with almost no visual support (since all references got
broken).
Is merging of branches conceptually treated differently from merging
revisions of the same URL? It seems so to me, since a simply synchronization
with the repository did not cause any such failures.
I am not sure whether this is a Papyrus- or EMF Compare-related defect, too.
Best regards,
Marc-Florian
"Camille Letavernier" wrote in message
news:lr54s8$q7u$1@xxxxxxxxe.org...
Hi Marc-Florian,
In theory, the EMF Compare editor works fine when used on *.uml, *.di and
*.notation files (Or the top-level Papyrus pseudo-folder). The support for
*.notation and *.uml is natively provided by EMF Compare, whereas the
support for *.di comparison is provided by Papyrus/UML Compare.
Note that EMF Compare relies on Content Types to identify models, which
means that if you changed your content-type definitions in your workspace
settings, this may prevent the comparison from working properly. Also, the
current version of EMF Compare doesn't work properly when partial/invalid
EMF/UML models are used (e.g. if a library/profile is missing). The scope of
the comparison is the current project, so, trying to compare a Papyrus model
when you have an invalid (even unrelated) *.xmi model in the same project
will most likely not work.
HTH,
Camille
|
|
|
| Re: How to open GMF Compare Viewer for merging [message #1403901 is a reply to message #1403891] |
Mon, 28 July 2014 14:08 |
Camille Letavernier
Messages: 952
Registered: February 2011 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi,
Papyrus only provides a thin integration layer on top of EMF Compare (A few menu contributions). Most bugs (and questions) should be reported to EMF Compare.
Quote:Is merging of branches conceptually treated differently from merging
revisions of the same URL? It seems so to me, since a simply synchronization
with the repository did not cause any such failures.
I don't know. Maybe in some cases, the files are "pre-merged by Git"? I've had issues with that even for standard Java projects. The "Pre-merged" option wasn't really helpful last time I tried it (This might have been fixed since then). If you don't use "Pre-merged", these tags shouldn't appear.
HTH,
Camille
Camille Letavernier
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 18 11:20:01 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02022 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
