Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
I have a working prototype of drawing abstracts, but I'm afraid that it will
become
confusing for people.
The main question here IMHO is if graph_models should draw diagrams based on the
database model or class-model. Personally i think having a database centric
diagram
is better. (but maybe we should do both)
The graph_models command currently shows the model as it is according to the
ORM. In
that sense "abstract = True" is only a bit of trickery, the models in the ORM
and in
the Database will have all those fields. Therefor there is no relation between a
field in an Abstract Base Class and the class that implements it. All the fields
defined by the ABC are part of the model that implements it.
However if you take the view of a class-diagram, then abstracts obviously need
to be
drawn as separate entities.
Drawing abstracts separately causes the diagram to become much harder to
understand,
it will not be clear (on first view) what fields are on what model since some of
these fields are 'hidden' in abstract classes. Also there would be need for
extra
types of connections (arrows and lines) to indicate an abstract base class
connection.
Original comment by v.oostv...@gmail.com
on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:28
As a follow up, i now committed a patch for graph_models in svn where
abstract's on
models are indicated by a italic <AbstractModel> under the model name, as well
as
making all abstract fields italic.
Original comment by v.oostv...@gmail.com
on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:29
since there's no activity on this ticket, i take it that people like my UML
type of
solution by showing abstracts as a parent/superclass of the model.
Original comment by v.oostv...@gmail.com
on 6 Feb 2009 at 9:04
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jjconti@gmail.com
on 24 Oct 2008 at 3:06