MantisBT - Open CASCADE
View Issue Details
0028082Open CASCADE[OCCT] OCCT:Data Exchangepublic2016-11-09 20:242017-09-29 16:29
[OCCT] 7.2.0[OCCT] 7.2.0 
Not required
0028082: UpdateAssembly() method in shape tool is not recursive
Today UpdateAssembly() method is used in XCAFDoc_ShapeTool for updating internal compounds stored in (sub)assemblies. This method is implemented in a non-recursive manner (it updates only the parent compound). What is proposed:

1. To make this method recursive to propagate compound update in a bottom-up manner. The current behavior is considered faulty.

2. To make the invocation of this method optional (enabled by default?). The idea is to let the user disable any updates unless he finishes some low-level modifications (modify instances, remove components, etc.). At the end, a global update can be done (see 0028055).
No tags attached.
related to 0028055closed apn Add UpdateAssemblies() method for top-down update of assembly compounds 
related to 0026314closed gka Method XCAFDoc_ShapeTool::SetShape() works not correctly. 
related to 0025441closed bugmaster XCAFDoc_ShapeTool::UpdateAssembly() does not update the back-references 
Issue History
2016-11-09 20:24ssvNew Issue
2016-11-09 20:24ssvAssigned To => ssv
2016-11-09 20:25ssvStatusnew => assigned
2016-11-09 20:25ssvRelationship addedrelated to 0028055
2016-11-10 11:40ssvRelationship addedrelated to 0026314
2016-11-10 11:42ssvRelationship addedrelated to 0025441
2017-08-15 14:22abvNote Added: 0069389
2017-08-15 14:22abvStatusassigned => feedback
2017-08-15 14:31ssvNote Added: 0069391
2017-08-15 14:31ssvAssigned Tossv => abv
2017-08-16 16:05abvStatusfeedback => tested
2017-08-16 16:06abvStatustested => verified
2017-08-16 16:06abvResolutionopen => fixed
2017-08-18 13:05bugmasterTest case number => Not required
2017-09-29 16:17aivFixed in Version => 7.2.0
2017-09-29 16:29aivStatusverified => closed

2017-08-15 14:22   
Sergey, is this issue still relevant? I suppose fix for 0028055 should be sufficient (it also removed method UpdateAssembly()) -- can you please confirm?
2017-08-15 14:31   
Confirmed. This issue is not relevant since a better approach was implemented.