baifanvhai / apromore

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/apromore
0 stars 0 forks source link

Generated TAG's ID's in XML should be a complex-string #70

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
we face a problem when id of the process is same as id of one of the tags that 
are generated via adapter. in this case oryx ignores the process id and keeps 
the last occurrence which is not what we are looking for. 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mehrad1@gmail.com on 29 Jul 2010 at 5:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Issue 65 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by macri.fa...@gmail.com on 2 Aug 2010 at 7:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
During meeting (5/8/10) we decided:

- The Id of a process version is a double whose decimal representation is 
concat(processId, versionName-no".", timestamp)
- The attribute "rootId" of element CanonicalProcessType in cpf, "Id" of 
element PackageType in xpdl, will be given this value.

Original comment by macri.fa...@gmail.com on 6 Aug 2010 at 1:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
I think you meant 'uri' and not 'rootId' in CPF. 'rootId' points to the id of 
the root net in a hierarchical model.

Original comment by marcello...@gmail.com on 6 Aug 2010 at 9:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
any updates on this issue?
as you know this is not related to oryx. oryx only opens the given process. if 
the id is not the right one, the given process should be revised. 

Original comment by mehrad1@gmail.com on 12 Nov 2010 at 12:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Marie, Abdul, any update on this issue? Has it been fixed?

Original comment by marcello...@gmail.com on 12 Nov 2010 at 8:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
The process id is complex string value generated automatically and it is a 
unique within the all process. I remember we fixed that long time ago and that 
is what the adapters generate now.

Original comment by aah.shareef@gmail.com on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
As Abdul said, This is fixed.

Original comment by macri.fa...@gmail.com on 13 Nov 2010 at 9:55