Skip to content

Metamodel link renames#621

Draft
aschemmel-tech wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames
Draft

Metamodel link renames#621
aschemmel-tech wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames

Conversation

@aschemmel-tech
Copy link
Contributor

Relates: #418

@github-actions
Copy link

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The linked ticket does not cover, why linke from component requirements is removed to the feature architecture, can you give a rationale for that?

@aschemmel-tech
Copy link
Contributor Author

The linked ticket does not cover, why linke from component requirements is removed to the feature architecture, can you give a rationale for that?

My understanding is that the metamodel picture shall reflect what is implemented (or to be implemented soon) in docs-as-code. This link is not implemented.
There is no mention of the usage of this link described in the requirements nor the architecture process.
When I thought of the correct naming of this link ("derived_from" I guess), I realized the above and removed this to reduce complexity of the pictures.

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech force-pushed the aschemmel-tech-metamodel-link-renames branch from e2de5ad to 881bfc3 Compare March 26, 2026 10:55
@masc2023
Copy link
Contributor

The linked ticket does not cover, why linke from component requirements is removed to the feature architecture, can you give a rationale for that?

My understanding is that the metamodel picture shall reflect what is implemented (or to be implemented soon) in docs-as-code. This link is not implemented. There is no mention of the usage of this link described in the requirements nor the architecture process. When I thought of the correct naming of this link ("derived_from" I guess), I realized the above and removed this to reduce complexity of the pictures.

But it is marked as mandatory, so maybe it is forgotten? @RolandJentschETAS , can we discuss this, otherwise I am fine to remove it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants