Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[pivot] Introduce CompleteOCLValidationDelegate #2344

Open
eclipse-ocl-bot opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

[pivot] Introduce CompleteOCLValidationDelegate #2344

eclipse-ocl-bot opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@eclipse-ocl-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

| --- | --- |
| Bugzilla Link | 583269 |
| Status | NEW |
| Importance | P3 normal |
| Reported | May 23, 2024 05:33 EDT |
| Modified | May 23, 2024 05:34 EDT |
| See also | 582494 |
| Reporter | Ed Willink |

Description

Bug 582494 struggles with the longstanding issue that EMF validation cannot know about a Complete OCL enhancement.

Perhaps we have been avoiding an easy solution.

EMF validation also has no fundamental knowledge of OCLinEcore constraints. That lack is remedied by EAnnotation wiring; an EPackage registration, an EClass list of constraints, and EClass constraint bodies.

Why not have a further EPackage registration, an extended EClass list of constraints, and maybe EClass constraint added value?

Fortunately the EPackage.freeze() at the end of built-in installation does not inhibit mutation of EAnnotations.

So OCLinEcore validation is supported by edit-time enhancement of the *.ecore that is persistred to run-time by the synthesized createEAnnotations().

Conversely CompleteOCL validation can be supported by run-time enhancement of the EPackage tree. To avoid leakage, the validator should only respect the extra validations wuithin the ResourceSet for which the Complete OCL was loaded.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant