One for ChatGPT (or similar)

Now that I can view Validation errors in the Information tab, I encountered the following message:

The ComponentFunctionalAllocation realizes a
ComponentFunctionalAllocation from a previous level. The allocating
component should realize the allocating component of the realized
ComponentFunctionalAllocation or be contained by a realizing component.
The allocated function of the ComponentFunctionalAllocation should also
realize the allocated function defined in the realized
ComponentFunctionalAllocation or be a sub-function of a realizing

My brain just cannot parse this :slight_smile: Or, my brain is too old.

More seriously: I think I know where this one is coming from, and may be a side effect of another flagged issue. I will review it at a later date.

Very seriously: love this tool.

1 Like

Yeah, this is not the most clear validation error message that one can imagine. One thing to remember though: there are a lot of validation rules that are activated by default on Capella. It can be worthwhile to deactivate some of them that are not useful for your use case, rather than spending time making the perfect model with entering information that won’t be useful in the end.

I deactivated all transition messages and this significantly reduced the amounts of warning.

As FYI, there is one warning I got, and it seems to me to be a transition message:

Implementation of XYZ (Capability) is not realized by any CapabilityRealization

This is a Rule ID: DWF_UC_02

I understand that this message also to be a transition message. So, either my understanding is lacking (likely), or this is a bug (possible).

I post this FYI. I don’t need help or resolution on this topic right now.



Mostly it says you have an allocation that is not consistent with the previous layer.
If you had on logical architecture the first image, the rule checks that in the physical layer you have the 2nd or the 3rd, not the 4 or 5.

(B is a sub function of A)

You probably have moved the function to a component not related to the logical component.

Unfortunately, before I could analyze the problem in detail, the error went away as I was fixing other parts of the diagram.

Nevertheless, thank you very much for the explanation. I’ll keep this in mind - I am sure I will need it sooner or later.