I let myself to ask you about some issues which I found in Capella.
I’m trying to test this tool in Valeo group.
The question is about delegation between parent component and subcomponent.
I didn’t find the interface supported by this delegation, so my interfaces diagram in the logical level messes this part.
In the other wise my diagram messes the transition between the boundaries of parent component and internal subcomponent in term of interface.
When I add these interfaces, the model become non validate.
Would you mind helping me about this issue?
Best regards,
Younes elhejbani.
Hello,
Would you mind posting a few diagrams illustrating precisely your problem?
Thanks!
Hello,
Thank you Ms Bonnet,
I wish that this image illustrated my problem.
I don’t know if it is the best practice or not, because when I delete the interfaces between parent component and sub component the model (in this step) become validated.
Best regards.
Youness Elhejbani
Not sure I understand the issue, sorry.
You are not supposed to create interfaces between a parent and a child component in addition to the delegation link.
Instead, if the ComponentPort that receives the “Clock Radio Input” ComponentExchange provides an Interface that have a set of ExchangeItems, then what the delegation links mean is that the ExchangeItems of this Interface should be split between Interfaces provided by “Clock Radio HMI” and “Radio HMI” (but these interfaces don’t have to be used by the parent component).
Using the contextual menu on “LogicalRadioClock” Logical Component, I believe there is somewhere (probably under the “Wizards” menu items) a command that is called “Logical Component Decomposition Wizard”. I encourage you to try it, it allows drag and dropping ExchangeItems from the parent component to the children components (and also to create interfaces).
Hello,
Thank you Ms Bonnet for the interest that you have shown to my question.
I have used the “Wizards” like what suggested to me.
With this option I succeed to show what is exchanged from the parent component:
On the first image1 ([LAB]logical Radio Clock - Logical Architecture Blank) we can see what is exchanged from the parent component, but the link from the parent is messed which i can find it in another diagram image2 ([CEI] Logical Radio Clock - Contextual Component External Interfaces).
So : 1- exchange between the actors and system in term of interface (I had already this information in System analysis) Image3
2-the divergence of echangeItems in Logical system (I have got this illustration in image1 and image3).
3- by combining (1&2) in term of comprehension of the system I can say that I got the information.
Question1 : I don’t know if what I’m trying to do is the best practice or there is another way to illustrate my ideas.
With this alternative I got away all the warnings.
Question2 : by the way I would like to ask you about severity of informations sent by capella (warning,error…),most of them are Warnings i don’t know if that means i must solve them (warning) or i must solve just the information kind (error).
I inspire this idea from my little experience with Rhapsody IBM because even if i had lot of warning i could execute my model.
Best regards
Sorry but it is not easy to understand what you want to achieve.
I can see some component that simultaneously use and implement the same interface, this does not look right.
You could maybe attach your model to your next post so that we can have a look. But to me, this all look like a standard component-interface encapsulation mechanism that is illustrated broadly in the literature.
There is not simple answer to your question about validation rules. First of all, you cannot “execute” models in Capella. You have to know why you model things and what are your objectives (producing documentation? Generating code?). Based on these objectives, you will select a subset of the validation rules you want your model to comply to. (validation rules can be activated / deactivated in the Preferences). Then once you have identified this minimal set of rules, you sure make sure your model don’t violate them
Stephane
PS: I am Mr, not Ms