JS Exception "Generalization is not legal for .."

[sveng]

I try to add a "Generalization" connector to an element via JScript:

var p  as EA.Package;
p = Repository.GetPackageByGuid(TYPE_DEF_PACKAGE);
var elements as EA.Collection;
elements = p.Elements;
var typedefElement as EA.Element;
typedefElement = elements.AddNew( name, "Class" );
typedefElement.Stereotype = "typedef";
typedefElement.Update();
var newConnector as EA.Connector;
newConnector = typedefElement.Connectors.AddNew("","Generalization");
newConnector.SupplierID = 27;
newConnector.Update();

When calling "newConnector.Update()" I get the execption "Generalization is not legal for Class --> Class". What is the problem? A similar "typedef" element with a "Generalization" connector was created in my model by reverses engineering C++ code:

typedef enum {FILTER_NONE, FILTER_2AL} FILTER_TYPE;
typedef FILTER_TYPE EXPO_FILTER_TYPE;

Why can't I create a similar structure via JScript?

[qwerty]

I had no issue running the above script.

q.

[sveng]

I'm using EA 11.1.1110. Do I need to change some settings in EA before I run the script? Which check in EA can cause an exception "Generalization is not legal for Class --> Class"?

[qwerty]

I seem to remember having seen such a compliance message but can't recall the circumstances. How does that message appear?

q.

[sveng]

I have an try-catch statement around the code:

try
{
      ...
}
catch(e)
{
      Session.Output("Exception occurred: "+e.description);
}

The output is then:
Exception occured: Generalization is not legal for Class --> Class

[qwerty]

Have you configured some custom model validation? Does it happen if you run it in a plain EAP? What MDGs are you using?

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

It might also be the "strict UML syntax" option (although a Generalization between a Class and another Class seems perfectly valid UML syntax)

Geert

[sveng]

Thanks a lot Geert!
This is the workaround:
I switched off "Tools->Options->Links->Strict Connector Syntax". Now I do not get the exception any more. You are right, that the current behavior is strange, because the created link is valid UML. The other strange thing is, that I do not get any error, when I create the link manually.
Sven

[KP]

Do the classes have stereotypes?

[sveng]

The client element is a Class type with "typedef" stereotype and the supplier element is an Enumeration type with "enumeration" stereotype

[qwerty]

Strange. Now I also get the error. Even stranger: manually you can create it. The quick linker does not offer a Generalization from <<enumeartion>> to <<typedef>> but vice versa. The script throws an error in both directions.

q.