In autosar, RTE generation one of our software component like Rte_Write API with structure arguments how to write in CAN frame individually.
RTE_Write API is dedicated to Software level. For Network transportation you have to define DataMapping and optionally Transformer for the way data are split/collapsed.
Related
I defined my software system using EA. I stayed mainly at the high level so far. The software interfaces between my components are represented as Structural Elements "Provided Interface" (the little purple bullets) and "Required Interface" (the little sockets).
Now, I would like to go a little bit further into the details, and define the API corresponding to each of these Provided Interfaces, ideally as a class diagram. It would be perfect if I were able to create a nested composite structure diagram for each of these Provided Interfaces, like for software components for example. But it seems that EA does not enable that.
What I do is that I create an Interface nested in my software component, then I link the Required Interface (the purple bullet) to my Interface (purple square) with a Dependency link. Then I can create a nested composite structure diagram in my Interface. But I doubt this is the optimal method.
Can someone tell me what is the "EA-approved" way of defining Required Interfaces ?
Thank you :)
You can directly select the Interface in the ProvidedInterface or RequiredInterface without needing to explicitly create a Realize or Dependency connector to the target interface.
You can do this as shown in the figures below:
One advantage of this is that you do not have to show the actual target interface on the same diagram as the components while still being able to navigate to them. This becomes handy when you have components that provide or require many interfaces (and you do not want to clutter your diagram). With this approach you can use the Find | Locate Classifier in Project Browser context menu and directly jump to the composite diagram.
One of the projects I am working on uses flow ports to model data flow between classes. We now started to model dynamic behavior using activity diagrams and state charts and are looking for a way to express that the data used in an activity diagram has been received on a specific port. Bascially, we want to create a connector between a flow port and e.g. an activity parameter node.
I think modelling data flow with ports is quite common especially in System Engineering, and there should be ways to link the data to activities. I can think of two some ways:
Connect the port to a property (or part) and use a ReadStructuralFeatureAction to get the value
Connect the port to a property (or part) and add an operation to the class which is called with a CallOperation
Create an attribute with the same name as the port and provide an operation that is called with a CallOperation action
The first option would be ok, but our modelling tool Rhapsody 8.1 seems to not support ReadStructuralFeatureActions. The other two approaches have the drawback that there is no direct connector between the port and the activity in the model and it is not visually obvious, so I would like to have a better alternative.
I am wondering if there anybody knows of better approaches to achieve this, e.g. using SysML (1.3).
The connections between the static and the dynamic views in UML and SysML are "hidden" in the less visible part of the model. I guess the reason is that the designers of UML wanted to separate these. So there are no graphical or otherwise very explicit connections.
Instead, the connections are quite natural, so you can just use it. Examples are the guards, triggers or actions on transitions in state charts or activity diagrams. This ReadStructuralFeatureAction is implemented implicitely by using the static element directly. You can modell them directly there. So they occur next to the edge that represents the state transition or control flow. A futher way is to use Receive Actions and set the property of the reception to an event or an triggered Operation. By using Send Actions you can trigger Events in the same structural element or others. When doing so in Rhapsody you need to specify the target Port and the target part.
Neither in UML/SysML or Rhapsody it is foreseen that you want to know via which port the call came or the attribute was changed, when you offer the interface of the Class/Block. But you can realize this by using full ports and implement the intended behaviour (which sould be distinctive - otherwise it would not be needed to know the source). So each full port has a state chart or activity and passes internal signals or events the object of your class. For calling operations from actions there are two ways, the more hidden one by just calling from the actions (or state on enter or leave) and the more visible one by using call operations.
The visibility of these connections have been changed in recent UML or SysML versions. So this will change significantly when updating to later Rhapsody versions; although I would really recommend to update to the latest Rhapsody version, as it brings better sysML support, far less bugs, a few new features and better usability.
How can I route a "signal" though a Software Composition without having to copy it (with some code)?
Use-case: The SW-Composition has some RPorts where the data has to be modified and then provided on some PPorts. But for some RPorts/PPorts combination the data does not need to be touched and therefore "simply routed" from RPort to PPort.
The idea would be to simply connect the RPortPrototype with the PPortPrototype with a DelegationSwConnector. But as per specification this is not possible.
Any idea how to do this without the need of "copy-code"?
If I understand correctly that your P- and R- ports are on the composition itself (that is, they are outer ports), you can use the pass-through connector (PassThroughSwConnector model element) for your use case. It's a child element of compositions, so you add a PassThroughSwConnector to your CompositionSwComponentType, and use it to connect your two ports directly.
Note that this will be impossible if there's another path between the two ports via assembly connectors. That would create a loop consisting of pass-through and assembly connectors, which is explicitly forbidden in the specification.
Software Compositions are only a structural grouping. Before generating the Rte, you have to run a tool that creates an "EcuExtract" (see System Template) which flattens the model. So, the input for the Rte is one big root composition that contains atomic components only and no further compositions. Therefore, there will be no "copy node" and data is alway passed through.
However, (with some limitations) it is possible that in the Ecu Extract the port of the root composition has a different type then the port of the component which will lead to data conversion (e.g. rescaling the data or picking an element out of a structure).
I need a tool (preferably online, but at that stage I don't care anymore) which allows me to modelize relationships (similar to BPMN) which can be represented as compound graphs (though most of the times, it will be a simpler nested graph). I can't seem to achieve my goal using BPMN formalism (swimlanes are the closest but they do not allow arbitrary nesting). I am thinking to reuse UML modelization tools but I don't know enough about UML to know if UML covers my use case.
Imagine an integrated circuit which is made of chips connected with wires. So three chips : A,B,C and Chip A -> Chip B, Chip C. Each chip has input ports and output ports, and some of the output ports of A are connected to the input ports of B, some are connected to those of C. Now Chip A itself can be considered as an integrated circuit, and as such can be decomposed in another graph : Chip A :: Chip A.1, Chip A.3 -> Chip A.2. Each Chip A.1 can also be decomposed etc. This is what is called a compound graph. Each node of a compound graph can have children which are themselves graphs.
I do know about the Harel's and UML's statecharts formalism, which allows for hierarchical graphs to describe hierarchical nested state machines (hence any nested graph can potentially be expressed with statechart formalism), though I do not know any online tool which allow to draw statechart. The question is whether UML has a mechanism or tools which allow to specify a compound graph, and if so, what is the nesting mechanism?
Level 1
-------
---|ChipA|---ChipB---
| |---ChipC---
|-----|
Zoom on Chip A
-----ChipA.1---ChipA.2---- (...linked to ChipB input port
|--ChipA.3-| |-- (...linked to ChipC input port
An example of compound graph from the litterature :
In response to your comment,
The question is whether UML has a mechanism or tools which allow to specify a compound graph, and if so, what is the nesting mechanism?
At the infrastructure level, it uses the Element::ownedElement association to represent containment. The Namespace::ownedMember associate subsets this association, as do the association between classes and their members, packages and nested packages, components and their contained items, and so on. All of these are conceptually compound graphs, but are not rendered in a similar way to you diagrams.
In terms of you 'Chip made up of chips', the CompositeStructures package in the UML superstructure ( section 9 of the 2.4.1 superstructure ) uses these association to create composites, or for a domain specific example built on top of UML then SysML is the UML dialect created for systems engineering.
A systems engineering block diagram consists of blocks created with ports and connectors; blocks can have internal structure of further network of blocks. The connectors carry flows, whic can be information, energy or matter.
An example block diagram for some plant shows the custom rendering used to show owned elements in the same diagram as their containers:
See http://www.omgsysml.org/ or http://sysmlforum.com/sysml-faq/ for further information.
Tools for sysml are listed on the http://sysml.tools/ site.
Start with the component diagram in UML.
Your chips can be treated as components, ports will be... well, ports ;-) but also you should define some sort of interfaces (functions offered/needed by those ports). As I understand it the arrow direction depicts some sort of dependency (so the chip at the end with arrowhead provides something and thus will have a provided interface while the other end will have a required interface and a proper connection between them).
If a specific port is realised with internal structure you'll use a delegation connector for that.
Apart from auto mapping CLR Classes to EDM models, what are the advantages or use-cases for the ODataConventionModelBuilder ?
What specific set of pains does it make go away? With sample code if possible.
ODataConventionModelBuilder is used for generating the Entity Data Model (EDM) for your OData service. The main purpose of EDM is used to define the type system, relationships and the actions that can be exposed by your OData service model.
If you are looking for a specific example, see this link - http://bitoftech.net/2014/04/16/create-read-only-odata-endpoint-using-asp-net-web-api/
In general OdataConventionModelBuilder is preferred over ODataModelBuilder since it infers the inheritance hierarchies, navigation properties and standard properties.
Also look at this link - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alexj/archive/2012/11/02/odata-in-webapi-microsoft-asp-net-web-api-odata-0-2-0-alpha-release.aspx