| Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Viewpoint switch in Papyrus |
|
Hello Seb, après discussion avec mon compère Grenoblois,
je crois que je suis à peu près aligné avec le RFC2119 de l’IETF qui semble faire référence (
http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) :
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. 2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification. 3.
SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. 5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.) De : mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de GERARD Sebastien 166342 Est-on clair que quand tu dit should il s’agit d’une option ? De :
mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de REVOL Sébastien Hello all, I have added two requirements:
De :
mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de TESSIER Patrick 202707 It is possible to add a req. 1.
When a view point is corrupted, it is display in the UI with an overlay (interdiction) but is impossible to select it and message indicate that the viewpoint is corrupted. OR
2.
Corrupted viewpoints are never loaded and shown in UI. De :
mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de NOYRIT Florian Dear Papyrus contributors, We are about to improve the viewpoint switch to make it more accessible and convenient to use.
You’ll find the requirements and early design proposal at
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Papyrus/Neon_Work_Description/NewFeature/Papyrus_Viewpoint_Switch You may review the requirement and the proposal.
Please note that it is only about switching between the various registered viewpoints. If you have other requirements/remarks about viewpoints that you feel don’t fit exactly in this topic but you consider as somehow
related, you may send them directly or even better through a Bugzilla entry (with me in CC). Best regards. /Florian |