Description Peter Cigehn 2016-05-24 08:16:11 EDT

This is a spin off from Bug 489621 which was related to a null pointer exception that was thrown when copy-paste of capsule part in a structure diagram. Based on those findings Bug 490804 was written on Papyrus which identified inconsistencies when doing copy-paste of a part in a composite structure diagram, where similar (but not identical) inconcistent behavior also can be seen in Papyrus-RT.

Taken from Bug 489621 Comment 19:

The aspects identified in Bug 490804 are there though, i.e. depending on what you have selected prior to pasting you get three different behaviors/results:

1) If you select the structure compartment of the capsule prior to pasting, the copy ends up stacked on top the existing capsule part
2) If you select the capsule itself prior to pasting, the copy ends up at the "auto-layuout" position, i.e. the corresponding position that you would have gotten if you used the new child menu in the model explorer to create an additional capsule part.
3) If you don't have anything selected at all in the diagram prior to pasting, then you actually get two views of the same capsule part in the diagram. Removing the capsule part, removes both views. One of the views gets positioned at the "auto-layout" position (as in 2), and the other one ends up above the existing capsule part. It even looks like that the one above, is placed outside the structure compartment (if you move the capsule itself, then that view for the capsule part don't move, as the other one).

These inconsistencies needs to be looked into, probably also related to any possible fix in base Papyrus tracked by Bug 490904. But since the behavior in Papyrus-RT seem to be a bit different I guess we also need to check Papyrus-RT specifically.

This Bugzilla is used for both tracking the Papyrus issue, and any possible Papyrus-RT specific behavior related to this inconsistent paste behavior. Since UML-RT do have a strict one-to-one relation between a capsule and its capsule structure diagram, it should not really matter which of the three cases is performed. They should semantically behave the same.