23 add exclusivity operators #28
Conversation
…dd inference rule for interfereWith and notInterfereWith operators for Hardware/Hardware type
…hasNonInterferingServices, raise error on priority of Interfere relation over NotInterfere relation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Before merging it would be nice to add a test class that is checking that interfereWith update the hardwareInterfereRelation (and its not interfere countpart) on a simple example. Same request for the hasInterfering/hasNonInterfering services.
The CI is not working due to an external change in the available action to mount an SBT image. I will take care of that with a rebase of this branch on master once the patch from issue #20 has been merged
…dd inference rule for interfereWith and notInterfereWith operators for Hardware/Hardware type
…hasNonInterferingServices, raise error on priority of Interfere relation over NotInterfere relation
…nalyzer into 23-add-exclusivity-operators
…nalyzer into 23-add-exclusivity-operators
…fereWith[Service,Service] operators
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| "Two Hardwares" should "be able not to interfere with each other" in { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am a bit picky, but consider writting "Hardware components".
An to avoid repeating the first part of test name, you can use "it" keyword that will reuse the first part of the name of the previous test
| tr1Id.isTransparent | ||
| tr2Id.isTransparent | ||
| transactionIsTransparent.value contains (tr1Id) | ||
| transactionIsTransparent.value contains (tr1Id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be tr2Id on line 41
Description
Add hasInterferingServices and hasNonInterferingServices as operators pour type Hardware.
Add inference rule for interfereWith and nonInterfereWith operators for Hardware/Hardware type.
Warning: There is a priority conflict between InterfereRelation and NonInterfereRelation, the first one seems to have priority over the second one.
What type of pull request is this? (check all applicable)
Related Tickets & Documents
If possible ensure that you have provided in your commit message the issue id (available here) this pull request fixes,
for instance to refer to issue #42 you can do:
git commit -m "solving issue #42 with ..."Check here for more information
Added tests?
Added to documentation?
Do we need to update pml analyzer version?
Is this new version should be released as soon as possible?