Batmobile example has 2127 warnings and 34 errors

[donpellegrino]

Opening the Batmobile example in SysON immediately gives 2,127 warnings and 34 errors in the validation widget. Unless these have been introduced intentionally in support of a tutorial exercise for fixing them and working with validation, it seems that the included example should be free of any warnings or errors. Otherwise, users will be conditioned to just ignore validation.

Is this a bug or might I have done something wrong as a new user?

Test system: SysON v2025.10.0.

[donpellegrino]

Creating a minimal example of a new model containing a Part Definition with an Attributes generated 10 warnings. I added a type to the Attribute to see if that was the problem, but I still get 10 warnings for this:

package Package1 {
	private import ScalarValues::*;
	part def PartDefinition1 {
		attribute attribute1 : String;
	}
}

Validation:

An AttributeUsage must directly or indirectly specialize Base::dataValues from the Kernel Semantic Library. (checkAttributeUsageSpecialization constraint on AttributeUsage is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

If a Feature has an ownedTyping relationship to a DataType, then it must directly or indirectly specialize Base::dataValues from the Kernel Semantic Library. (checkFeatureDataValueSpecialization constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

If a Feature has isEnd = true and an owningType that is an Association or a Connector, then it must directly or indirectly specialize Links::Link::participant from the Kernel Semantic Library. (checkFeatureEndSpecialization constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

If a Feature is owned via a FeatureMembership, then it must have a featuringType for which the operation isFeaturingType returns true. (checkFeatureFeatureMembershipTypeFeaturing constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

If a Feature has isPortion = true, an ownedTyping relationship to a Class, and an owningType that is a Class or another Feature typed by a Class, then it must directly or indirectly specialize Occurrences::Occurrence::portions from the Kernel Semantic Library. (checkFeaturePortionSpecialization constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

If a Feature is a result parameter of an owningType that is a Function or Expression, then, for each direct supertype of its owningType that is also a Function or Expression, it must redefine the result parameter. (checkFeatureResultRedefinition constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

A Feature must directly or indirectly specialize Base::things from the Kernel Semantic Library. (checkFeatureSpecialization constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

A composite Feature typed by a Structure, and whose ownedType is a Structure or another Feature typed by a Structure must directly or indirectly specialize Objects::Object::subobjects. (checkFeatureSubobjectSpecialization constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

A composite Feature that has an ownedTyping relationship to a Class, and whose ownedType is a Class or another Feature typed by a Class, must directly or indirectly specialize Occurrences::Occurrence::suboccurrences. (checkFeatureSuboccurrenceSpecialization constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

A Feature with isEnd = true must have no direction. (validateFeatureEndNoDirection constraint on Feature is not respected for Package1::PartDefinition1::attribute1)

I can't tell what is wrong with that model. Is there more information on what the validations is trying to tell me?

[AxelRICHARD]

Hello,

Thank you for using SysON and for the feedback.

Is this a bug or might I have done something wrong as a new user?

No this is not bug, and you've done nothing wrong as a new user.

We just didn't implemented all the derived features and all the specializations rules from the SysMLv2 specification yet.
That's why the Validation view displays some wrong results.

We are working on it, it will be improved in th next releases.

Regards,