Hello Pierre-Yves,
I've looked up the relevant bugfix, it's the following one:
https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/104424/ The change description seems
to match the situation in your description.
From my overview of the recent changes (
https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/q/project:henshin/org.eclipse.emft.henshin
) , I expect that an update to the nightly build won't break
anything with your current environment. The biggest change is the
inclusion of a textual syntax, which doesn't interfere with the
existing components. Apart from that, it's mostly minor bugfixes.
The burst of changes at the end of November comes from a
release-engineering issue for building the textual syntax components
on our Hudson server.
To be on the safe side, of course, I suggest to backup the current
environment before trying it out.
Best regards,
Daniel
Am 14.12.2017 um 09:56 schrieb
py.schmerber:
Hello Daniel,
Thank you for your help.
I am using the current release 1.4.0, as I need a stable
environment.
How can I check the list of bugs corrected in the nightly
build?
Best regards,
Pierre-Yves Schmerber
-------- Message d'origine --------
Date : 13/12/2017 12:02 (GMT+01:00)
Objet : Re: [henshin-user] Problem with type of parameters
in units
Hello Pierre-Yves,
this problem sounds familiar: in the recent nightly build, we
fixed some bugs related to the parameter flow validation. Are you
using the nightly build version, or an earlier release?
Best regards,
Daniel
Am 13.12.2017 um 11:41 schrieb
Pierre-Yves Schmerber:
Hello Henshin
users,
I have a
question about parameter type declaration in units:
When I have a
sequential unit that calls only rules, I can declare a var
parameter X in the unit that is declared as output of the
first rule the first rule, and as an input of the second
rule. However, when I replace the second rule by a unit
that calls itself the second rule, and I declare the X
parameter as an input to this called unit, the validation
raises an error on the top unit as in parameters may only
be mapped to in, inout or unknown parameters.
How shall I
declare the X parameter on the second rule to prevent this
validation error (that has no impact on the transformation
execution) ?
Note: I have a
similar problem for out parameters when I
replace the first rule by a unit.
Best
regards,
Pierre-Yves
Schmerber
_______________________________________________
henshin-user mailing list
henshin-user@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-user
_______________________________________________
henshin-user mailing list
henshin-user@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/henshin-user
|
