Hi, I just noticed there was a change in the way Capella performs the 2 transitions below from version 1.3.1 to 1.4.0:
In version 1.3.1 it transitions:
Logical Components > Physical Components (the blue ones which are called “Behavior PCs” in the toolbox)
In version 1.4.0 it transitions:
Logical Components > Physical Nodes (the yellow ones which are “Node PCs” in the toolbox)
Something similar happens to Logical Actors.
I’d like to know if it is possible to perform the transition from Logical Architecture to Physical Architecture in version 1.4.0 as it happened in version 1.3.1 which is by creating Physical Behavior Components (the blue guys) and not Physical nodes (the yellow ones) for each Logical component. (I mean, using a transition mechanism with the diff/merge window).
Thanks for any help on this subject!
Hi, I just noticed there was a change in the way Capella performs the 2 transitions below from version 1.3.1 to 1.4.0:
In version 1.3.1 it transitions:
Logical Components > Physical Components (the blue ones which are called “Behavior PCs” in the toolbox)
In version 1.4.0 it transitions:
Logical Components > Physical Nodes (the yellow ones which are “Node PCs” in the toolbox)
Something similar happens to Logical Actors.
I’d like to know if it is possible to perform the transition from Logical Architecture to Physical Architecture in version 1.4.0 as it happened in version 1.3.1 which is by creating Physical Behavior Components (the blue guys) and not Physical nodes (the yellow ones) for each Logical component. (I mean, using a transition mechanism with the diff/merge window).
Thanks for any help on this subject!
Hi Fabio,
I am not answering your question but it may be interesting you have a look at the “What’s new in Capella 1.4” webinar if you did not already, it explains some of the changes that happened on Phyisical Components / Actors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRpOjfyPbk
Hi Fabio,
I am not answering your question but it may be interesting you have a look at the “What’s new in Capella 1.4” webinar if you did not already, it explains some of the changes that happened on Phyisical Components / Actors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRpOjfyPbk
Hi Stephane, I was writing you when I saw this response 
I’ve seen the changes in the MetaModel in the What’s New video which I thought were very good and are actually a reason why I am using v1.4.0 for my tests. I didn’t see any addressing of this exact topic in the video (although I understand the changes in the MetaModel may have caused the change of the automation which led to the behavior specified above).
What I am struggling with in this new version is with the fact that the elements in the Physical Architecture that I think are best representatives of the Logical Components from the LA perspective are the Physical BCs and not the Physical Nodes. (And I think Physical BCs would be a better starting point to transition structural elements from LA to PA)
Also, the automated transition transitions the Component Ports from the LA to Component Ports in the Physical Nodes which are not really meaningful to me. The exchanges are also transitioned as Component Exchanges. The way things were done in this automated transition in previous versions seemed more correct methodologically.
Hi Stephane, I was writing you when I saw this response
I’ve seen the changes in the MetaModel in the What’s New video which I thought were very good and are actually a reason why I am using v1.4.0 for my tests. I didn’t see any addressing of this exact topic in the video (although I understand the changes in the MetaModel may have caused the change of the automation which led to the behavior specified above).
What I am struggling with in this new version is with the fact that the elements in the Physical Architecture that I think are best representatives of the Logical Components from the LA perspective are the Physical BCs and not the Physical Nodes. (And I think Physical BCs would be a better starting point to transition structural elements from LA to PA)
Also, the automated transition transitions the Component Ports from the LA to Component Ports in the Physical Nodes which are not really meaningful to me. The exchanges are also transitioned as Component Exchanges. The way things were done in this automated transition in previous versions seemed more correct methodologically.
Yes let’s wait for somebody from the Capella team to answer your question. I know there are a couple of issues with the transitions in 1.4.0 that are going to be fixed for 1.4.1.
Stephane
Yes let’s wait for somebody from the Capella team to answer your question. I know there are a couple of issues with the transitions in 1.4.0 that are going to be fixed for 1.4.1.
Stephane
I just found this bug report:
“Bug 561178 - Transition LC to PC: A logical component (isActor = false) shall be transitioned with a BEHAVIOR nature”
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=561178
It seems the behavior I described above is a bug and was already being tracked by the team and should be available at version 1.4.1 
Great to know! I’ll keep using version 1.4.0 and convert to 1.4.1 as soon as it is available.
I just found this bug report:
“Bug 561178 - Transition LC to PC: A logical component (isActor = false) shall be transitioned with a BEHAVIOR nature”
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=561178
It seems the behavior I described above is a bug and was already being tracked by the team and should be available at version 1.4.1
Great to know! I’ll keep using version 1.4.0 and convert to 1.4.1 as soon as it is available.
Hello
Indeed, there is a work in progress on this subject
Meanwhile you can check this post for turnarounds :
https://forum.mbse-capella.org/t/1103462/
Hope it helps
Hello
Indeed, there is a work in progress on this subject
Meanwhile you can check this post for turnarounds :
https://forum.mbse-capella.org/t/1103462/
Hope it helps