ETSI's Bug Tracker |
Anonymous | Login | Signup for local Mantis account | 17-05-2024 13:58 IST |
Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap | Stop monitoring project |
View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||||
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||
0005125 | ETSI TTCN-3 Quality Checker | T3Q tool | public | 28-04-2009 14:11 | 26-11-2009 14:08 | ||||
Reporter | Philip Makedonski | ||||||||
Assigned To | Philip Makedonski | ||||||||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A | ||||
Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||||||
Platform | OS | OS Version | |||||||
Product Version | |||||||||
Target Version | Fixed in Version | ||||||||
Summary | 0005125: Discussion: Order of local definitions and additional entries | ||||||||
Description | Current requirement for the ordering of local definitions is rather static. The possibility to have this feature more flexible and configurable has been briefly discussed on several occasions. Since this can be regarded as project-specific setting, it might be desirable to allow a more flexible solution in that the order of local definitions can be better customized according to the project guidelines. It should then be possible to have the order of local definitions groups defined in the configuration, such as all local variables shall come first, followed by all local timer declarations, followed by all constants, or any other ordering. Currently only local variables are required to be defined at the beginning. Timers and constants have been discussed as well. Also the ordering in component definitions has been a subject of discussion, where often ports and timers are declared before variables. What is the overall opinion on the subject matter? Do constants need to be included as well? Do timers need to be considered? Do component declarations and control parts need to be taken into consideration? Is a more flexible configuration (with the risk of increased usage complexity) desirable? If so, should there be separate configuration entries for component declarations and control parts? | ||||||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||||||
Attached Files | |||||||||
Notes | |
(0008699) Philip Makedonski (developer) 01-06-2009 10:32 |
Initial and simplest solution can be to have all local declarations at the begining of the local scope, regardless of their type, that is constants, timers and variables carry the same weight. This has the drawback that such a solution will permit any mixture and ordering of the local definitions which may not be optimal. Additionally, such a solution would require (it would be desirable) to be able to configure what is considered a local definition. This way restricting local definitions to constants and variables for example would require that all timers are declared after all local definitions (constants and variables), yet in this scenario constants and variables can still be mixed up. The advanced solution would be to have fine grained control over the ordering of definitions. Such a solution could be achieved by repeatedly reconfiguring the above simpler solution. |
Issue History | |||
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
28-04-2009 14:11 | Philip Makedonski | New Issue | |
28-04-2009 14:11 | Philip Makedonski | Status | new => assigned |
28-04-2009 14:11 | Philip Makedonski | Assigned To | => Philip Makedonski |
28-04-2009 14:12 | Philip Makedonski | Summary | Discussion: Order of local definitions => Discussion: Order of local definitions and additional entries |
28-04-2009 14:13 | Philip Makedonski | Severity | minor => feature |
01-06-2009 10:32 | Philip Makedonski | Note Added: 0008699 | |
26-11-2009 14:08 | Philip Makedonski | Status | assigned => resolved |
26-11-2009 14:08 | Philip Makedonski | Resolution | open => fixed |
MantisBT 1.2.14 [^] Copyright © 2000 - 2024 MantisBT Team |