Is there a rule similar to procedure_calL_003 for sequential procedure calls?

[JHertz5]

What is your question? I would like to enforce the structure of procedure calls within processes, similar to how procedure_calL_003 behaves for concurrent procedures. I haven't been able to find such a rule, does this exist already?

Desired behaviour:

architecture rtl of test is

begin

  proc_call(formal_1 => actual_1,
            formal_2 => actual_2,
            formal_3 => actual_3);

  proc_label : process is
  begin

    proc_call(formal_1 => actual_1,
              formal_2 => actual_2,
              formal_3 => actual_3);

  end process proc_label;

end architecture rtl;

to

architecture rtl of test is

begin

  -- Handled by procedure_call_003
  proc_call(
            formal_1 => actual_1,
            formal_2 => actual_2,
            formal_3 => actual_3
          );

  proc_label : process is
  begin

    -- Not handled by any rule that I can find
    proc_call(
      formal_1 => actual_1,
      formal_2 => actual_2,
      formal_3 => actual_3
    );

  end process proc_label;

end architecture rtl;

[jeremiah-c-leary]

Morning @JHertz5 ,

The rule procedure_call_003 should have also applied to sequential procedure calls. I checked my tests and for some reason the tests were not validating it applied to sequential procedure calls. I updated the tests and rule procedure_call_003 to handle them.

I pushed an update to the issue-1074 branch. When you get a chance could you check it out and let me know if there are any issues?

Thanks,

--Jeremy

[JHertz5]

Hi @jeremiah-c-leary. That was fast, thanks very much! I've tested your branch with the test case that I described in #1073, and it is working perfectly!

[JHertz5]

With this change, perhaps the references to "concurrent procedure calls" in the documentation for this rule should be removed, to avoid implying that sequential procedure calls are still excluded. I would be happy to raise a separate issue and make those changes myself.

[jeremiah-c-leary]

Afternoon @JHertz5 ,

I think it would be best to update the documentation as part of this issue. I have pushed some updates, could you check and see if I missed anything?

Thanks,

--Jeremy

[JHertz5]

Hi @jeremiah-c-leary. That makes sense 👍 It looks good to me, thanks very much!

[jeremiah-c-leary]

Morning @JHertz5 ,

Awesome, I will get this merged to master.

--Jeremy