I am a little confused with the use of REC/RPL
I created a REC based on a simple Node
Then I instantiate a RPL, using a suffix
The RPL instance is correctly named, but the underlying Node is not, so I get a validation error that my physical system contains 2 elements with conflicting names.
If I rename the node created from instantiating the REC, I then get an error that my RPL is not up to date compared to its origin.
If I update the RPL, the original name is restored, hence the original error, i.e. I am going in circles.
Am I doing something wrong here ?
I am runniong capella 5.0 in windows.
REC_RPL_PartsNaming.zip (7.0 KB) .
Hi. One way to avoid this is to apply the suffix to both the Node Type and Part when defining the REC. This Type and Part stuff is legacy from first versions of the tool.
When you validate the model and get this error, you can double-click on the message and apply the quick fix that will rename the Part to be consistent with the Type.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for your support!
I am still confused though. What do you mean by “apply the suffix to both…”, I do not understand how I can do that. The suffix is available when creating the RPL, and I don’t see an option to apply it to both. What I get is shown on the figure below, i.e. a catalog element with the suffix, but the corresponding physical component which don’t.
And if I validate the model at that stage, I get the error about conflicting names.
How can I get the PC created in my physical system to have the suffix too, and still be up to date with its corresponding REC ?
Am I using this REC/RPL feature wrong ?
Thanks again for you time
When you create the REC, you define to which elements you will add the suffix when they are replicated:
By selecting both the type and the part, you are sure that you won’t have the error you got before.
Thank you very much!