Hi Alex
Most tools expect things to be something more than some empty entities. You just have to follow tool assumptions sometimes.
For DSM, I already posted a fix for the test:
model := MooseModel new. model add: (FAMIXNamespace new name: 'name1'); add: (FAMIXNamespace new name: 'name2'); add: (FAMIXNamespace new name: 'name3').
allActionMorphs := self allActionMorphsIn: model allNamespaces mooseMenu.
For FamixMethod, #allPackages can not be computed because no package are defined in the stub model. So just add one.
The following raises an error. Is this intended?
| group fClass | fClass := FAMIXClass new. group := FAMIXMethodGroup new. group add: (FAMIXMethod new name: 'name1'; parentType: fClass); add: (FAMIXMethod new name: 'name2'; parentType: fClass); add: (FAMIXMethod new name: 'name3'; parentType: fClass). group allPackages
allPackages cannot be computed.
On 12 oct. 2010, at 20:04, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Hi!
Is it okay to assume that some FAMIX object may leave outside a model? There is the following method:
DSMCell>>configurationForNamespace
self accesses: (self from mooseModel sourceLanguage = #Smalltalk ifTrue: [ self from outgoingReferencesTo: self to ] ifFalse: [ (self from outgoingReferencesTo: self to) union: (self from accessTo: self to) ]). ... ^ self dependencies
What do you think about adding: self mooseModel ifNil: [ ^ self dependencies ]
It would make the DSM more robust. I tried to open a DSM on a namespace group defined as:
group := FAMIXNamespaceGroup new. group add: (FAMIXNamespace new name: 'name1'); add: (FAMIXNamespace new name: 'name2'); add: (FAMIXNamespace new name: 'name3').
It raises an error.
Alexandre
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Simon