[INTS] Add new object type INTS

[raghav6686]

No description provided.

[cla-assistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[cla-assistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[GuilhermeSaraiva96]

Thank you for submitting the AFF. I have added a few comments. Since it is a big AFF and it is important that we understand how it works, would you be open for a meeting?

[GuilhermeSaraiva96]

We have spoken within the team, could you please setup a meeting with me (Guilherme Saraiva), Nicolas Huber and Michael Schneider? We do not usually ask for meeting, but due to the urgency of the delivery and the complexity of the AFF, we think it is best.

[GuilhermeSaraiva96]

Sentence case means that only the first letter of the first word is capitalised.
Sorry that you changed all of the descriptions, they need to be reverted

[schneidermic0]

I have added several comments now. In a first step, I would focus on structural changes of the AFF like: bindings and binding_mappings or signature*, modeling* and parameter*.

Furthermore, an example would be nice to see the references of INTM to INTS.

I expect more feedback after this iteration.

[raghav6686]

I have added several comments now. In a first step, I would focus on structural changes of the AFF like: bindings and binding_mappings or signature*, modeling* and parameter*.

Furthermore, an example would be nice to see the references of INTM to INTS.

I expect more feedback after this iteration.

I've done the changes. Please review and let me know in case of any comments.

[raghav6686]

Sentence case means that only the first letter of the first word is capitalised. Sorry that you changed all of the descriptions, they need to be reverted

I've done then changes.

[huber-nicolas]

I only made some comments regarding nameing of fields and titles

[schneidermic0]

I had a look at recent changes. But I haven't managed to look into all details, yet. This object has a huge list of fields.

@huber-nicolas gave some input on differences between the title (shorttext description) and the field name. If possible we should keep them in sync. However, whether you change the field name or the title is up to you. I guess, there we see anyhow further suggestions during UX review. But I would keep them in sync already.

[albertmink]

Thanks @raghav6686. LGTM in my role as UX person

[huber-nicolas]

Looks good to me

[schneidermic0]

Two more small requests. But no crucial changes from my point of view.

I didn't went through completely, yet.

[schneidermic0]

Sorry, one more question: Is there only a predefine set of scenario types ans scenario technologies? If so, would it make sense to use an enumeration.

The same question came up for some further types like "usage type" or turnkey type below.

There are some more "_type" (except object type fields) and "_kind" fields in other structures that might raise the same question.

[schneidermic0]

I had another look. We suggest to use enums wherever it is possible.

It should be also possible to specify allow list for enum values when implementing an ADT editor based on AFF.