Hacktoberfest 2026：维护者为十月标记出来的 issue，仍然开放、适合新手。 浏览 Hacktoberfest issue

Subsetting type conformance is not checked, although redefinition type conformance is

未关闭
  • 哪里不对？
#95 1 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 1 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
3/5
预计耗时
1-2 天
新手友好度
65/100
Issue 类型
缺陷
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
go
领域
compilers

调研方向

从 ParseFile 和 Resolve 入口开始，跟踪如何验证 subsetting 和 redefinition 关系以及如何收集诊断信息。通过 gRPC 服务复现不符合规范的 subsetting 示例，然后添加一个回归测试，将该示例与符合规范的对照用例和 redefinition 用例一起覆盖。完成的标准是：无效的 subsetting 模型报告类型符合性诊断，而有效模型保持无诊断。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

Subsetting type conformance is not checked, although redefinition type conformance is

Version: v0.3.0, sysml-grpc-linux-amd64, SHA-256 b39b720e020c325020af95c33640ad3583c938d74c40d29a0741fab6c03412de
Path: ParseFile + Resolve over gRPC, one inline document

Summary

The service validates that a redefining feature's type conforms to what it redefines, and it validates the multiplicity bound for subsetting and redefinition alike — but it does not validate that a subsetting feature's type conforms to what it subsets. That case produces no error, no warning, and no diagnostic of any kind.

The asymmetry looks unintentional rather than deliberate: the multiplicity rule is already applied to both relations (its message says so — "Subsetting/redefining feature should not have larger multiplicity upper bound"), and the redefinition type check already computes and formats exactly the diagnostic the subsetting case needs.

Reproduction

Each block is one document through ParseFile, then Resolve. Diagnostics are the union of both, de-duplicated.

1. Subsetting with a non-conforming type — expected a diagnostic, got none

package P {
	class A;
	class B;
	feature g : A;
	feature f : B subsets g;
}

→ (no diagnostics at all)

f subsets g asserts that f's values are among g's. g holds As and f is a B, which is unrelated to A, so no value of f can be a value of g.

2. Control — subsetting with a conforming type

package P {
	class A;
	class B specializes A;
	feature g : A;
	feature f : B subsets g;
}

→ (no diagnostics at all)

Correct, and together with (1) it shows the check is absent rather than merely lenient: the well-formed and the ill-formed model are indistinguishable in the output.

3. The same violation through redefinition — reported

package P {
	class A;
	class B;
	class C { feature g : A; }
	class D specializes C { feature g : B redefines C::g; }
}

→ [error] g (typed by B) redefines g (typed by A): types do not conform

4. The multiplicity half of subsetting — reported

package P {
	class A;
	feature g : A [0..5];
	feature f : A subsets g [0..10];
}

→ [warning] Subsetting/redefining feature should not have larger multiplicity upper bound

5. Control — the resolver is working

package P {
	class A;
	feature g : Nonexistent;
}

→ [error] unresolved reference: Nonexistent

Also reproduces in SysML usage syntax

Same silence with part def / part in a .sysml document, so it is not specific to the KerML surface:

package P {
	part def A;
	part def B;
	part g : A;
	part f : B subsets g;
}

→ (no diagnostics at all), and likewise with part def B :> A for the conforming control.

Expected

Case (1) reports a diagnostic in the shape case (3) already produces — e.g. f (typed by B) subsets g (typed by A): types do not conform.

Why it matters to a downstream consumer

Silence is indistinguishable from a clean bill of health. A tool that asks the service to validate a model gets an empty diagnostic list and has no way to learn that half of the subsetting check did not run — so it reports the model as sound. For consumers that build a specialization/subsetting graph out of the parsed model (we translate one to OWL), an unchecked subsetting edge propagates into everything derived from it.

Environment

Reproduced on Linux x86-64 against the published v0.3.0 release asset, checksum as above, over the gRPC API only. Happy to supply the exact request payloads if useful.

主要语言
Go
星标
24
派生
5
平均合并
10 小时 7 分钟
30 天内合并 PR
536

环境准备

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

Open-MBEE/OpenSysML 的其他 Issue

查看 Open-MBEE/OpenSysML 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Go Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。