19 wording for scenario and transaction #71
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…thout defining intermediate transactions.
remove explicit usage of Transaction in all examples and tests. need to only consider AtomicTransaction as a technical concept hidden from the user
Now simply a named type for a sequence of services. User can only assert constraints on existing atomic transactions. Need to perform the final renaming where Scenario becomes Transactions. Need to check comments and doc to enforce consistency
Move Transform to main operators. Merge ToTransaction features into Transform. Add Transform features directly to Platform and TransactionLibrary. Need to complete the renaming Scenario into Transaction
… computation of Scenario parameters. This requirement is fragile. Perhaps consider another solution, but it would clash with the actual logic of mixin based assembly of platforms.
Note that former transaction (i.e. service path) is now an atomic transaction.
…thout defining intermediate transactions.
remove explicit usage of Transaction in all examples and tests. need to only consider AtomicTransaction as a technical concept hidden from the user
Now simply a named type for a sequence of services. User can only assert constraints on existing atomic transactions. Need to perform the final renaming where Scenario becomes Transactions. Need to check comments and doc to enforce consistency
Move Transform to main operators. Merge ToTransaction features into Transform. Add Transform features directly to Platform and TransactionLibrary. Need to complete the renaming Scenario into Transaction
… computation of Scenario parameters. This requirement is fragile. Perhaps consider another solution, but it would clash with the actual logic of mixin based assembly of platforms.
Note that former transaction (i.e. service path) is now an atomic transaction.
…onera/pml-analyzer into 19-wording-for-scenario-and-transaction
ccoquand
reviewed
Oct 9, 2025
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pourquoi nommer une variable arbSc ?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
C'est une excellente question... arbTr aurait été plus pertinent
ccoquand
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Please indicate whether this pull request [adds/removes/fixes/replaces] the [feature/bug/etc].
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?