search

Systems-Modeling / SysML-v2-Pilot-Implementation

Proof-of-concept pilot implementation of the SysML v2 textual notation and visualization
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
131 stars 24 forks source link

Unable Import Package Directly Under Root Accross .sysml Files With Short Name #580

Open westboros opened 4 months ago

westboros commented 4 months ago

(Using 2024-05 Release) I am getting an error when trying to import a package in a separate .sysml file when using the package's short name, but only when that package is directly under the root node. In the example screenshot below, Package \<b1> B1 in TestB.sysml is trying to import package \<a1> A1 in TestA.sysml with statement "import a1;", but this results in the error "Couldn't resolve reference to Membership a1".

Note, I do not get an error when trying importing package \<a1> A1 using its non-short name, A1. This can be seen with package \<b2> B2 in TestB.sysml successfully importing package \<a1> A1 with the statement "import A1;").

I also do not see this error when trying to import a package across .sysml files using the package's short name in the case when it is nested deeper into the .sysml file. This can be seen with package \<b1> B1 in TestB.sysml successfully importing package \<'a1.1'> A1.1 in TestA.sysml with the statement "import A1::'a1.1';".

image

seidewitz commented 4 months ago

This is a known limitation of the Pilot Implementation. For performance reasons, top-level names across files in the global scope are resolved using the index built by Xtext during a project build. Currently, this index only includes the primary names of top-level elements and does not include short names or aliases.

We hope to remove this limitation in the coming months as we improve the name resolution algorithm.

westboros commented 4 months ago

Thank you for the response and explanation. I was not aware it was a known issue. Is there some existing item that I can point to and close this as a duplicate? If the item cannot be accessed or referenced here, would it be appropriate to leave this open so that others know it is a known issue?