change groupImage path for extended records

[NBrandtTLK]

We use geometry records for our heat exchangers in TIL and have one partial record with e.g. two child records that extend from the partial record.
The parameters are all defined in the partial class.
Now I want to attach a different image next to the parameter group for child record 1 than for child record 2 with groupImage.
I could do that by adding a dummy parameter in each child record that has to show up in the parameter dialog (at least i'm able to disable it).
But that doesn't seem to be a nice option.

I tried to add the groupImage annotation in the partial class and use if expressions or DynamicSelect but no tool seems to support it.
Am I doing it wrong?

I found #2225:
Is it really a tool issue and should I write to Dassault/Wolfram/Modelon/ESI seperately to get support for something like that?
Or is it not well defined enough?

For other graphical annotations expressions seem possible:
#3376

[HansOlsson]

Interesting issue.

From a structuring point of view I don't think it makes sense to use if-expressions in the partial class, since that doesn't work if the child records are constructed separately and shouldn't influence the partial base-class.

I agree that dummy parameters don't seem nice, so the possibilities I see are:

• Use a parameter-expression for the image in some way (even though a parameter impacting the parameter-dialog in that way can become messy).
• Have a new (class-level) annotation for adding a group-image without any attached parameter, something like annotation(Parameters(Dialog(group="Fixed geometry", groupImage= "modelica:/Modelica/Resources/Images/Magnetic/FluxTubes/Shapes/CuboidParallelFlux.png"), Dialog(...), );

[NBrandtTLK]

I would be fine with a class-level annotation for a group-image. Then it would be kind of similar to the Dymola-specific Images()-annotation, that we used in the past but want to get rid of since it is not part of the specification. It would also enable empty parameter groups with just an image.

But any other solution without the need of dummy parameters would be ok aswell.

[HansOlsson]

Language group: Parameters isn't that great a name, could use annotation(ClassDialog(groupImage=... and have ClassDialog as a sub-set of Dialog.

But seems reasonable.

Some questions:

• Can we use this instead of having group-images for parameters? (Easier to maintain if deleting parameters, and easier to add graphically?)
• Treated exactly the same as existing groupImage, right?

[henrikt-ma]

We talked a bit about this at Wolfram, and concluded that ClassDialog would only make sense if it was designed to solve the bigger problem of organizing tabs, groups, and elements. Something like this:

annotation(
  ClassDialog(
    tabs = {
      Tab(
        title = "My Tab",
        groups = {
          Group(
            title = "My Group",
            image = "…",
            elementOrder = {bar, foo, baz}
          )
        }
      )
    }
  )
)

With such a representation, it would be possible to reorder tabs, groups, and elements within groups, and all of this without affecting element declaration order (which might have unwanted consequences beyond mere appearance in graphical user interfaces).

Unfortunately, the existence of the current mechanism with tab and group being defined at the element level means that there would be two ways of representing the same thing, making implementation considerably more difficult than if there would only have been one way.

All in all, we think that the effort to implement anything worthy an extension of the language appears out of proportion for the relatively small user benefit.

[HansOlsson]

We talked a bit about this at Wolfram, and concluded that ClassDialog would only make sense if it was designed to solve the bigger problem of organizing tabs, groups, and elements. Something like this:

annotation(
  ClassDialog(
    tabs = {
      Tab(
        title = "My Tab",
        groups = {
          Group(
            title = "My Group",
            image = "…",
            elementOrder = {bar, foo, baz}
          )
        }
      )
    }
  )
)

With such a representation, it would be possible to reorder tabs, groups, and elements within groups, and all of this without affecting element declaration order (which might have unwanted consequences beyond mere appearance in graphical user interfaces).

Unfortunately, the existence of the current mechanism with tab and group being defined at the element level means that there would be two ways of representing the same thing, making implementation considerably more difficult than if there would only have been one way.

All in all, we think that the effort to implement anything worthy an extension of the language appears out of proportion for the relatively small user benefit.

But what about the simpler:
annotation(Parameters(Dialog(group="Fixed geometry", groupImage= "modelica:/Modelica/Resources/Images/Magnetic/FluxTubes/Shapes/CuboidParallelFlux.png"), Dialog(...), )
that only would solve the specific issue in this PR?

Updated: Nothing except tab, group and groupImage in this Dialog.

[henrikt-ma]

We would like to see a design which addresses the more general problem of rearranging dialog content, so that we avoid designing something now that will get in the way later.

[HansOlsson]

@HansOlsson to think about re-ordering (to avoid having to reorder which may cause changes to symbolic manipulation).