Dear All,
I am spending some time on the Squeak Version of Mondrian.
It seems that there is a bug when on how edges are drawn.
For example, the following code draw some edges between nodes that
does not exist.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| view nodes |
nodes := Collection withAllSubclasses.
view := MOViewRenderer new.
view nodeShape: (MORectangleShape new
width: [:each | each instVarNames size * 5];
height: [:each | each methodDictionary size ]).
view nodes: nodes.
view edges: nodes from: [:each| each superclass] to: [:each| each].
view layout: (MOTreeLayout new).
view open
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can compare the result with the VW version:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| nodes |
nodes := Collection withAllSubclasses.
view newShape
rectangle;
width: [:each | each instVarNames size * 5];
height: [:each | each methodDictionary size];
withBorder.
view nodes: nodes.
view edges: nodes from: [:each| each superclass] to: [:each| each].
view treeLayout.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I also fixed a bug related to the translation of edges. It is in
Mondrian@Squeaksource
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Dear List,
I am not sure whether this is the right list to ask this question.
What is the current status of Mondrian for Squeak?
The Squeak scripting facility is quite different from the one in VW.
Is the squeak version stable ?
I am just curious
Merry Christmas to all of you,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Is there an obsolete one? If yes, maybe it could be renamed so
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi doru
in association we (simon and me) have problems with above: and below:
(which only works for inheritance)
we suggest from: to: which would have the benefit that when we do not
want to distinguish between access and
reference give us the interface with want.
Access from a method to a structure
Access accessor a method to a structure
Reference from a method to a structure
Inheritance from a class to its superclass
Then I do not understand why the instance variable is defined both in
the class and its superclass
either we have
abstract methods in Association and no state in Association and
attributes in subclasses.
or we have
state in Association and method in subclass reuse this state (= no
definition of other iv in subclasses)
To help debugging we prefer to have state in subclasses and abtsract
superclass methods.
Stef
Hi
I was wondering if I could get more explanations on the classes of
Moose core:
MooseElement - not sure why it is not merged with MooseEntity
MooseEntity - described as the base class for any entity
MooseAbstractGroup - abstract composite
MooseGroup - my guess, a group of common entities like 'all packages',
'methods from selected class'. Comment says 'Group adds on top the
ability to change the type of a group when we add more items inside',
which is not clear to me
MooseModel - a named group, created only when importing a project into
Moose. I'm not sure why it is a sibling of MooseGroup and not, for
example, a sibling.
Now I am not sure how this model is handled through the moose finder.
Any details to share?
--
Simon
Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose?
Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones
which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame.
But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas
which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods",
"numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using
MooseEntity#propertyNamed:
But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which
should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those
pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just
found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
--
Simon
I loaded the latest Mondrian packages into Damien 3.10 dev on OSX in this
order
- announcements
- mondrian
- mondrian paintings
Running all 26 tests gave 16 errors.
MOFormsBuilderTest testAdvancedApi sort-of hangs the image (drawing not
displayed until I Alt-. interrupt). I occasionally see MNU for
MOLabelShape>>width
Am I using an incorrect version/combination?
Thanks ~ Sophie
Hi doru
I would like to know what is the status of isStub in Famix30?
I'm trying to get that working in FAMIX30
I have
FAMIXEntity stub: aBoolean
self isStub: aBoolean
and isStub: is defined only on and EntityState
FAMIXNamedEntity isStub: aBoolean
isStub := aBoolean
Then in
MinimalState isStub: boolean
[boolean == false] assert
I imagine that the code above is only used when there is no property
EntityState isStub: boolean
^self attributeSet: #privateIsStub value: boolean
Sorry if this is a repeat, not sure if my first post came through.
Is it possible with Mondrian to do any of the following:
- generate labels on graph edges e.g. names of association ends in a UML
class diagram?
- generate nodes like class nodes (with name, line, attributes list, etc.)?
- possibly with some layout coding, generate component-port-connector
models: labeled boxes, labeled lines between boxes, labeled mini-boxes on
the edges of the connections
- Are these reasonable usages of current Mondrian capability?
Thanks!
