Replacing Operations in SFG

Description of issue:

Given a valid SFG, the user should be able to replace any operation with another operation(s) with the same amount of in/output ports.

Linked Requirements:

( 23 )

Potential Issues:

None

Blockers:

( #8 (closed), #12 (closed), #13 (closed) )

Issue Requirements:

1. Any operation in a SFG should be able to be replaced with another operation with the same amount of in/output ports. The resulting SFG should be valid.
2. Any operation in a SFG should be able to be replaced with another set of operations with the same amount of in/output ports. The resulting SFG should be valid.

Comment:

The resulting SFG should be valid according to #12 (closed).

added 1 deleted label

mentioned in issue #17

added 1 deleted label

removed 1 deleted label

added 1 deleted label

added 1 deleted label

1. As a user I want to be able to switch out an operation with another operation with the same amount of input ports and the same amount of output ports.
2. As a developer, given the identifier of the operation to replace and a new operation(s), then the operation should be able to be decoupled and replaced with a new operation. The function should then return a new sfg.

The user stories looks good to me, maybe reformulate user story nr. 2. Make a numbered list as well. @jacwa448

added 1 deleted label and removed 1 deleted label

Looked a bit at the current implementation of the SFG and investigated some ways to solve this issue.

added 1h of time spent at 2020-04-14

changed time estimate to 5h

changed milestone to %Period 1 Kanban

assigned to @jacwa448

added Needs testing label and removed 1 deleted label

created branch 15-replacing-operations-in-sfg to address this issue

Added tests for the operation and the definition of the method.

added 1h 30m of time spent at 2020-04-15

added Feature development label and removed Needs testing label

I implemented the functionality as described in the issue, I also fixed some issues with the tests. However, I had to decide how we should handle when we want to replace multiple operations, should we automagically create new operations or always assume that the number of output ports and input ports match in the given input to the method. I went with the second approach, but I am not sure it is intended.

The issue, as it is described right now, doesn't say anything about replacing multiple operations at once. It only describes that we want to change any operation to another operation or a set of operations. Is the issue wrongly described? @jacwa448

Well, the set of operations is the thing that is confusing, either it is supposed to be an SFG or something, then it is basically #14 (closed). Or it is to replace several operations in the SFG, otherwise the output_count and input_count will never match, or atleast in very few cases it might.

added 1h 30m of time spent at 2020-04-15

added Needs review label and removed Feature development label

mentioned in merge request !22 (merged)

changed milestone to %Period 2 Kanban

I have discussed this further with @felgo673 regarding the set replacement of operations, and decided that replacing several operations should be left to another implementation, like looping and for each operation calling the replacement method. This could be done in some sort of wrapper.

added 30m of time spent at 2020-04-17

added 1 deleted label and removed Needs review label

closed

removed 1 deleted label

added 1 deleted label