Closed MartinLoeper closed 7 years ago
The rules are ready:
rule lookUpEntryLevelSystemCallsWithParameterOfTypesFromReturnType:
pcm::DataType <- pcm::OperationSignature[returnType__OperationSignature] <- pcm::EntryLevelSystemCall[operationSignature__EntryLevelSystemCall];
insert edu.kit.ipd.sdq.kamp4bp.model.modificationmarks.BPModificationmarksFactory#createBPModifyEntryLevelSystemCall
into edu.kit.ipd.sdq.kamp4bp.model.modificationmarks.BPChangePropagationDueToDataDependencies#getEntryLevelSystemCallModifications;
rule lookUpEntryLevelSystemCallsWithParameterOfTypesFromParameter:
pcm::DataType <- pcm::Parameter[dataType__Parameter] <- pcm::OperationSignature[parameters__OperationSignature] <- pcm::EntryLevelSystemCall[operationSignature__EntryLevelSystemCall];
insert edu.kit.ipd.sdq.kamp4bp.model.modificationmarks.BPModificationmarksFactory#createBPModifyEntryLevelSystemCall
into edu.kit.ipd.sdq.kamp4bp.model.modificationmarks.BPChangePropagationDueToDataDependencies#getEntryLevelSystemCallModifications;
rule lookUpEntryLevelSystemCallsWithSignatures:
pcm::OperationSignature <- pcm::EntryLevelSystemCall[operationSignature__EntryLevelSystemCall];
insert edu.kit.ipd.sdq.kamp4bp.model.modificationmarks.BPModificationmarksFactory#createBPModifyEntryLevelSystemCall
into edu.kit.ipd.sdq.kamp4bp.model.modificationmarks.BPInterBusinessProcessPropagation#getAbstractUserActionModifications;
They resulted in the following workplans: Rule Comparison.zip
I compared them using http://www.synkronizer.com/trial-edition. It turned out that both workplans are equal! This means that both rules could be successfully rewritten using KAMP-DSL.
Please note that the given rules were tested against a custom set of marked elements.
Testing never proves the absence of faults it only shows their presence!
Write the following rules using KAMP-DSL:
both are located inside BPArchitectureModelLookup.
Compare the results and evaluate the current functionality.