[great-users] Delete pattern with with abstract models

Simon Görke simon.goerke at ils.uni-stuttgart.de
Wed Aug 26 07:51:55 CDT 2015


Some more findings on my problem: there actually seem to be two different issues related to the "delete" pattern:

1. The code generator's complaints on an object handle being null is related to using namespaces in the meta model. Without them, everything is fine; when adding one, the problem occurs - though not in each delete constellation. Maybe only with inherited objects? Not sure about the latter.

2. When I delete an object in a first rule and try to match it using a crosslink from another object in a proceeding rule, I get "Udm exception: Corrupt StaticObject set. Object by pointer is not in set!". This happens only when setting "run transform in memory" to true. Seems like the object is actually deleted, but the associated crosslink not => pointing into the void..?

Greets,
Simon

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: great-users [mailto:great-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] Im Auftrag von Simon Görke
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. August 2015 21:13
An: A list for GReAT users to share bugs, fixes and ideas
Betreff: Re: [great-users] Delete pattern with with abstract models

Hi,

>     It may be worthwhile to try defining the extended classes in the 
> same sheet as B. The pattern matcher may regard proxy objects 
> different than their canonical counterparts.

Tried, but makes no difference.
Seems to be linked rather to using inheritance in general?

Simon


_______________________________________________
great-users mailing list
great-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/great-users



More information about the great-users mailing list