CarNav* RT examples need to be updated

[peterwvj]

Currently we are working on updating the type checker to report an issue with the history expression - see overturetool/overture#472

As a consequence of this fix the CarNav* RT examples (there are two) do not type check anymore. For now I've simply excluded the tests from the ParseTcAllExamplesTest by indicating in the READMEs for these examples that the models do not type check - see da01ba2

That's fine for now. However, what we really need to do is to update the CarNav* examples such that they type check/execute again. The models ship with the tool so we should really fix the errors.

After the models have been fixed we should include them in the ParseTcAllExamplesTest again.

[peterwvj]

This test also has to be re-enabled

Tests run: 49, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.074 sec <<< FAILURE!
testCase[18 : CarNaviRadioRT.vdmrt](org.overture.pog.tests.newtests.PogIntegrationTest)  Time elapsed: 0.022 sec  <<< FAILURE!
java.lang.AssertionError: Type Check Error:

        Error 3349: Cannot see non-static operation from static context in 'EnvironmentTask' (CarNaviRadioRT.vdmrt) at line 89:26

Failed tests:
  PogIntegrationTest>ParamStandardTest.testCase:99 Type Check Error:

        Error 3349: Cannot see non-static operation from static context in 'EnvironmentTask' (CarNaviRadioRT.vdmrt) at line 89:26

[ldcouto]

What's the status on this? Are we discontinuing this example or is someone fixing it?

[peterwvj]

I'm not sure that fixing this issue is trivial. We can ask the author of the model if he wants to keep maintaining it as a standard example. According to the examples page @nlmave is the author of the model. Marcel, would you be interested in doing that?

[nlmave]

Well the example used to work :-) but I can have a look at what is wrong...

[peterwvj]

Thanks, Marcel. You are right - I don't think it's the example that has changed. The type error is caused by fixes to the type checker. The problem is explained in overturetool/overture#472

I think the error reported by the type checker makes sense so probably the model needs to be tweaked a bit.

[peterwvj]

PGL told me he fixed the problem with the model in 99cc420 so eventually we should include this model in the examples tests again