Bug 324889

Description Grant Taylor 2010-09-09 14:50:37 EDT

Build Identifier: org.eclipse.emf.ecore_2.6.0.v20100614-1136.jar

In our product, we're migrating to a new Eclipse base.  One of things that is changing is the org.eclipse.emf.ecore plugin, from 2.4.2 to 2.6.0.  When our model validator runs, it calls EObjectValidator.validate_MultiplicityConforms() up the hierarchy.  Our modeled attribute looks like this:

org.eclipse.emf.ecore.impl.EAttributeImpl@10571057 (name: mixed) (ordered: true, unique: true, lowerBound: 0, upperBound: -1) (changeable: true, volatile: false, transient: false, defaultValueLiteral: null, unsettable: false, derived: false) (iD: false)

The above is modeled against the document root of our model.  With the new EMF level, I see an error coming out of the validator:
"The feature 'mixed' of 'com.******.impl.DocumentRootImpl@1ff71ff7{platform:/resource/****/***.****#/}' with 0 element values must have exactly 1 element value"
(note I replaced some characters with *'s)

The above validation error doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the EAttribute is obviously modeled with 0...n cardinality.  Debugging the two versions of our product, I can see that ObjectValidator.validate_MultiplicityConforms() has changed.  There is a new block of code that creates the validation marker:
...
    boolean result = true;
    if (eStructuralFeature.isMany())
    {
      if (FeatureMapUtil.isFeatureMap(eStructuralFeature) &&  ExtendedMetaData.INSTANCE.isDocumentRoot(eObject.eClass()))
      {
        FeatureMap featureMap = (FeatureMap)eObject.eGet(eStructuralFeature);
        int count = 0;
        for (int i = 0, size = featureMap.size(); i < size; ++i)
        {
          EStructuralFeature feature = featureMap.getEStructuralFeature(i);
          int kind = ExtendedMetaData.INSTANCE.getFeatureKind(feature);
          if (kind == ExtendedMetaData.ELEMENT_FEATURE && 
                feature != XMLTypePackage.Literals.XML_TYPE_DOCUMENT_ROOT__CDATA &&
                feature != XMLTypePackage.Literals.XML_TYPE_DOCUMENT_ROOT__COMMENT &&
                feature != XMLTypePackage.Literals.XML_TYPE_DOCUMENT_ROOT__TEXT &&
                feature != XMLTypePackage.Literals.XML_TYPE_DOCUMENT_ROOT__PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION &&
                ++count > 1)
          {
            result = false;
            break;
          }
        }
        if (count != 1)
        {
          result = false;
          if (diagnostics != null)
          {
            diagnostics.add
              (createDiagnostic
                (Diagnostic.ERROR,
                 DIAGNOSTIC_SOURCE,
                 EOBJECT__EVERY_MULTIPCITY_CONFORMS,
                 "_UI_DocumentRootMustHaveOneElement_diagnostic",
                  new Object []
                  {
                    getFeatureLabel(eStructuralFeature, context),
                    getObjectLabel(eObject, context),
                    count
                  },
                 new Object [] { eObject, eStructuralFeature },
                 context));
          }
        }
      }

Is our model wrong?  Is there a bug in EObjectValidator?
Thanks.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Can only be reproduced in our product.