Summary: | Suppress redundant stereotype keywords for UML-RT concepts | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Modeling] Papyrus-rt | Reporter: | Christian Damus <give.a.damus> |
Component: | tool | Assignee: | Project Inbox <papyrusrt-inbox> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | charles, papyrus-bugs, peter.cigehn, sredding |
Version: | 0.8.0 | Keywords: | ui, usability |
Target Milestone: | Future | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
See Also: |
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=475905 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=462337 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=500683 |
||
Whiteboard: |
Description
Christian Damus
2016-09-01 10:53:11 EDT
I guess this one has some relation to an old Bugzilla that I wrote on base Papyrus, Bug 462337, which proposes a mechanism with the possibility of tagging specific stereotypes to be invisible/hidden (and only possible to apply programmatically, e.g. using DSML specific tooling). This is also a mechanism which the legacy tooling have. (In reply to Peter Cigehn from comment #1) > I guess this one has some relation to an old Bugzilla that I wrote on base > Papyrus, Bug 462337, which proposes a mechanism with the possibility of > tagging specific stereotypes to be invisible/hidden (and only possible to > apply programmatically, e.g. using DSML specific tooling). This is also a > mechanism which the legacy tooling have. Is this one then blocked on Bug 462337? Or just related ("see also") to it? (In reply to Charles Rivet from comment #2) > (In reply to Peter Cigehn from comment #1) > > I guess this one has some relation to an old Bugzilla that I wrote on base > > Papyrus, Bug 462337, which proposes a mechanism with the possibility of > > tagging specific stereotypes to be invisible/hidden (and only possible to > > apply programmatically, e.g. using DSML specific tooling). This is also a > > mechanism which the legacy tooling have. > > Is this one then blocked on Bug 462337? Or just related ("see also") to it? I would say that it is more related ("see also") than it is blocking this one. Please add it to see also if you see it fit (I don't have the access right to do so). |