Patch MSL 3.2.2/3.2.1 with missing 'each'?

[Francesco Casella]

The NF is very strict w.r.t the use of each in array attribute modifiers. It has allowed to discover a number of missing 'each' qualifiers in the MSL, that will be fixed in the upcoming MSL 3.2.3, due to be released in September, and it (correctly) fails to flatten a number of models because of that.

Should we bother to patch them in the version of MSL 3.2.2 and MSL 3.2.1 that we'll ship with the next releases, or should we just expect people to use MSL 3.2.3?

In principle, using MSL 3.2.3 seems a better solution, but the problem is, we don't have any provision for automatic library version updates, so all existing user models, that contain a uses annotation pointing to MSL 3.2.2, it will still silently use that and issue warnings or possibly fail if the NF is used.

Changing uses annotations is a bit of an advanced topic, the average user and the newbie won't have any idea.

Comments?

[tknodt@…]

A version/ release is something freezed and defined. It should not be changed.
What could be done is to add a suggestion into the error message.

[Francesco Casella]

Replying to tknodt@…:

A version/ release is something freezed and defined. It should not be changed.

If a released version of MSL contains invalid Modelica code, which makes it unusable with a Modelica tool that follows the standard, I can't see the point of keeping it like that for posterity...

[Per Östlund]

Switching to the NF is targeted for 2.0, so this is not a blocker for 1.13.0.

[Francesco Casella]

I had some discussion with Thomas Beutlich (MAP-LIB leader) and we agreed a maintenance version of 3.2.2 with these changes is unlikely to happen, though we'll try to avoid this kind of issues from 3.2.3 onwards.

So, we should patch MSL 3.2.2 adding all the missing each instances. This is a list to all the commits to the 3.2.3 development branch regarding this issue:

​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/652771fd6015117b16818f9db35f719c67e5c4be
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/0d69f7f323f74df45cb67a8bae7bf7dd5930851c
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/11b7728e81806253c671b4d21a09991384639b5e
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/3028d6c33ddd55b856c4ff1bb36bf8165b9ac075
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/c3c6327184204c0c01c9e596097b6ba46d0b5c79
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/73e2788a5a6b175991370eebfbc7228f3242c5f8
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/627b01fa8bdf41c0e589ad2c4cd06cc0d0d24253
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/4957c5f46ed928d3c893afbec5c234f51192c336
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/c8131672dd72e6d39894a288061d64e7f1ab4361
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/f28a8b208c697187707759f51db2baa31cf2ac60
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/fe289dcca85a3ff24cfb9368bbfb163cfc08346c
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/dc1a45e422a8a9021cd91f31ab8db1e60a3d3189
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/59a08b01343a159bf620e9b72d2e1dd59b023a95
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/bed777e845cf515041cf4c7074e867257c69f063
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/a91aa0ca90d37684444bdbd8d82ea1494df06811
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/8722ed7241045028059d608c8fcc3ccdd3fa19af
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/e1ec30868888fcb7bbca92da7d93bfb23ae84c1d
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/e77b13ac5d846ecc8601ef5c2581e7111dbc760e
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/40351c7f985c7998d4c2715fdb84a7089f8fd50b
​https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/commit/2bffeba02680d3e8a7bfc12510a4ccde375c416d

I'm not sure if there is a way to convert them automatically to a patch file, or if it is necessary to do this manually. In the second case, please let me know how can I help getting that done.

Once these are patched we can check ​here if there are remaining issues with this feature.

This is required for 1.14.0, when people will start using -d=newInst seriously, but it would be nice to have it ASAP, so as to improve the NF coverage of all non-MSL libraries

[Martin Sjölund]

Really not even going to be accepted in the 3.2 maintenance branch? Doesn't matter if there will be a new release or not, but shouldn't it be accepted anyway?

[Francesco Casella]

I quote Thomas Beutlich:

I doubt we have the resources to go for a MSL v3.2.2 maintenance release. It would not speed any thing up, but just gives us more work. Additionally, the maint/3.2.2 branch is in a unclear state with even new features added and missing bug fixes back ported.

Given that, I'm not sure adding these fixes to the 3.2.2 maintenance branch will give any added value, since that is in a pretty mixed-up state. Are we using the maintenance branch of 3.2.2 as a basis for our patch file? Otherwise, I wouldn't bother

[Martin Sjölund]

We are using the maintenance branch as the basis for the patches. So if we can push them into the maintenance branch, we won't get conflicts with the patches.

[Francesco Casella]

OK. In that case, I don't see anything wrong in pushing those fixes to that branch. I hope GIT is smart enough to allow merging them in without too much fuss. Is that possible?

[Francesco Casella]

We are now distributing MSL 3.2.2 with patched 'each' since 1.13.0