![]() ![]() ![]() But at least it is known and there is already a patch on its way (see ). Quote: Last but not least, even after accepting the selected difference, the UI shows the reject 'x' sign on all differences, see the picture below: Conflicting diffs should show up with a red background color and not a green one. It'd be great if you could post your (or a simplified) model comparison scenario (the three models), to reproduce the wrong colors of the consequences. Yeah, I'm pretty sure there is a bug that the colors of the consequences are wrong. Quote: Moreover, even though the UI shows that accepting the currently selected difference will accept the 2 others as well, what happens in the background is that both the Addition and the ResourceAttachmentChange are rejected. If you now accept the components delete, you'll automatically accept all its requirements and reject all its conflicting diffs on the opposite side (which is the addition of the variable in this case). As a background info, the requirement-relationships are defined by the .req.DefaultReqEngine. I don't know by heart, but I guess, the resource attachment change should show up in the requiredBy list of the reference change. There is a relationship between right components delete and right "uncontrol" of component, because the deletion of the component entails the "uncontrol", if the component is a root element in its resource. Quote: What I don't understand is how are the relations between these 3 differences shown as conflicts created? ![]() The conflict is between left variables add and right components delete Right: components delete, "uncontrol" of component.So it seems like the UI and input are somehow not in sync? Last but not least, even after accepting the selected difference, the UI shows the reject 'x' sign on all differences, see the picture below: Moreover, even though the UI shows that accepting the currently selected difference will accept the 2 others as well, what happens in the background is that both the Addition and the ResourceAttachmentChange are rejected. Why is that and where could that relation come from? In the background, the difference selected in the picture above only has the ResourceAttachmentChange in the implies list but its acceptance also seems to influence the addition difference. What I don't understand is how are the relations between these 3 differences shown as conflicts created? (in our ecore model, Variables are contained in a Component) Locally, a Variable has been added to the same Component which was deleted remotely. On the remote, a Component has been deleted Ģ. What basically happened, in this case, is the following:ġ. In the picture below you can see the conflicts I'm looking at: MlAutoMerge executable files, and then follow the recommended stepsįor the source control tool you are using.I am using EMF Compare to handle model merging in my own EMF-based application and I have encountered a problem in the UI when merging conflicts. To set up your source control tool to use MATLAB as the application for diff and merge, you must first determine the full paths You can use the automerge tool with Git™ to automatically merge branches that contain changes in different subsystems The MATLAB Comparison Tool provides tools for merging MathWorks ® files and is compatible with popular software configuration management and For a more complete list of supported files, see visdiff. Tool, then you can configure your source control tool to open the MATLAB Comparison Tool. If you want to compare MATLAB files such as live scripts, MAT, SLX, or MDL files from your source control You can customize external source control tools to use the MATLAB ® Comparison Tool for diff and merge. Customize External Source Control to Use MATLAB for Diff and Merge ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |