file Labels in a State machine

7 months 5 days ago #5506 by asefth
I can't display a Received event, Action or Sent signal/events in a transition between two states (in a state machine with Modelio 3.7 or 3.8 ).
Only guard and postcondition appear.
However I can set them (from Properties panel). But XMI export file doesn't show these information.

How can I do (or fix) that?
Should events/guards/action be first defined elsewhere then invoked from a state machine diagram?
Thanks

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

7 months 5 days ago #5507 by cde
Hi asefth,

In order to display the Received event, Action or Sent signal/events on a transition, you must check the 'Show label' tick-box on the Tansition's Symbol view :



Hope this helps,
cde
Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

7 months 4 days ago #5508 by asefth
Hi cde,
Yes. It works as you mentioned.
In fact, the Arrow of the symbol panel was somehow hidden in the right margin.

However the xmi doesn't show the whole specification of the transition, namely the Received event and the Sent signal/events
I could only find the guard condition :
<transition xmi:id="_Kpvmew" name="Transition 1-2" source="_id1" target="_id2" guard="_KpvmfAB">
  <ownedRule xmi:id="_KpvmfA" name="T>20°C" constrainedElement="_Kpvmew">
    <specification xmi:type="uml:LiteralString" xmi:id="_KpvmfQ" value="T>20°C"/>
  </ownedRule>
  <effect xmi:type="uml:OpaqueBehavior" xmi:id="_Kpvmfg" redefinedBehavior="_Kppfxg"/>
</transition>

Is there a parameter to setup in order to get the right xmi?
Thanks

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

7 months 2 days ago #5509 by ebr
Hi asefth,

Concerning the XMI export, you should have noticed some messages/warning inside the audit view, as depicted below, or as part of the XMI export report.



These messages should guide you in your modelling. An example is also attached. This example contains a dummy transition where Received and Send events are modelled and, respectively, exported as trigger and effect inside the Transition.



Hoping it helps and it is clear,
EBR
Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

7 months 1 day ago #5511 by asefth
Hi ebr,
it fixed the problem.
I used a pseudo state for my two outgoing transitions with 2 different guard conditions (outgoing directly from an initial state it is illegal regarding R2800 which was the cause of the problem).
Of course the audit gives useful information but is there a way to make the editor enforce directly these rules so it refuses to create a model element that is illegal?
And also to add a warning when creating an XMI export to say that the model is not legal (or a stop that requires to uncheck a checkbox to workaround)?
I'm quite uncomfortable with such a free behavior of the editor.
Thanks

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

5 months 2 weeks ago #5533 by ebr
Dear asefth,

Actually Modelio allows some freedom in order to facilitate modelling.
So Modelio is able to handle some unconform model (because of a unconform modelling, or code reverse result, or multiple user commits) because at some point of time it would be too difficult to find the reason of this unconformance.

XMI export should highlights and logs all irregularities without stopping it (mainly because the export itself is generally quick).
So you are able to take a look at all issues juste after a export or later.

Cheers,
EBR

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: cdeebr
Time to create page: 0.421 seconds
^ Back to Top