Incorrect base path for intermediate children?

[umesh-timalsina]

Consider the following inheritance structure, where LED and SchottkyDiode inherit from for Diode.
.

In the previous json exports, any contained child-node of LED would automatically point to Diode's children as its base (regardless of their level of their inheritance chain from FCO), which is the behavior of the node in WebGME. However, this behavior seem to have changed where now the export will also try to find the base node of the Diode if its not FCO. Snippet of the exports are provided here.

Previous Exports

---

      {
      "id": "c7b82794-099a-b4b1-e3ba-6438646b5004",
      >>>"path": "/9/x",
      "attributes": {
        "name": "Pin"
      },
      "attribute_meta": {},
      "pointers": {
        "base": "/9/0"
      },
      "pointer_meta": {},
      "registry": {
        "decorator": "ElectricCircuitsDecorator",
        "isAbstract": false,
        "position": {
          "x": 390,
          "y": 220
        }
      },
      "sets": {},
      "member_attributes": {},
      "member_registry": {},
      "children_meta": null,
      "children": []
    },
        {
      "id": "17f8ddd9-9d76-c704-1130-49e0c44a522a",
      "path": "/9/vH",
      "attributes": {
        "Ids": 0.000001,
        "Vt": 0.04,
        "Maxexp": 15,
        "R": 100000000,
        "T": 293.15,
        "name": "Diode"
      },
      ...
      ...
      "children": [
        {
          "id": "8f6490f1-3e37-2c48-a244-8fd96afbd77c",
          --- "path": "/9/vH/M",
          "attributes": {
            "name": "p"
          },
          "pointers": {
           >>> "base": "/9/x"
          },
        },
        {
          "id": "51346f7f-d98b-40f0-9deb-62c915f2f4c9",
          --- "path": "/9/vH/S",
          "attributes": {
            "name": "n"
          },
          "pointers": {
           >>> "base": "/9/x"
          },
        }
      ]
    },
   {
      "id": "314d3761-7f5a-5374-23e2-88644cf7b565",
      "path": "/9/NU",
      "attributes": {
        "color": "#FF0000",
        "name": "LED"
      },
      "attribute_meta": {
        "color": {
          "type": "string",
          "description": "The color of the LED"
        }
      },
      "pointers": {
        "base": "/9/vH"
      },
      "pointer_meta": {},
      "registry": {
        "position": {
          "x": 560,
          "y": 2260
        }
      },
      "sets": {},
      "member_attributes": {},
      "member_registry": {},
      "children_meta": {
        "/9/O": {
          "min": -1,
          "max": -1
        },
        "/9/0": {
          "min": -1,
          "max": -1
        },
        "/9/R": {
          "min": -1,
          "max": -1
        }
      },
      "children": [
        {
          "id": "a9d17a49-dc1b-b838-9096-4e5de2463033",
          "path": "/9/NU/M",
          "attributes": {},
          "attribute_meta": {},
          "pointers": {
            >>> "base": "/9/vH/M"
          },
        },
        {
          "id": "778185c7-3ba7-d480-af39-a34d9d4f1386",
          "path": "/9/NU/S",
          "attributes": {},
          "attribute_meta": {},
          "pointers": {
            >>> "base": "/9/vH/S"
          },
        }
      ]
    },

As it can be seen that the contained children of LED have contained children of Diode as their base pointers.

Current Exports

---

However, this is different with current exports, where the children of LED directly use Pin's path as their base pointer, which seems not to be the correct behavior. Where Pin is the base node for Diode's contained children.

 {
      "id": "c7b82794-099a-b4b1-e3ba-6438646b5004",
      >>> "path": "/9/x",
      "attributes": {
        "name": "Pin"
      },
      "attribute_meta": {},
      "pointers": {
        "base": "/9/0"
      },
      "pointer_meta": {},
      "registry": {
        "decorator": "ElectricCircuitsDecorator",
        "isAbstract": false,
        "position": {
          "x": 390,
          "y": 220
        }
      },
      "sets": {},
      "member_attributes": {},
      "member_registry": {},
      "children_meta": null,
      "children": []
    },
    {
      "id": "8012c8f8-ba5e-049e-076c-b59bdf31aeed",
      "path": "/9/RK",
      "attributes": {
        "color": "#FF0000",
        "name": "LED"
      },
      "attribute_meta": {
        "color": {
          "type": "string",
          "description": "The color of the LED"
        }
      },
    ...
    ...
      "children": [
        {
          "id": "6da863d8-d748-30e0-4154-54ae456967f2",
          "path": "/9/RK/6",
          "attributes": {},
          "attribute_meta": {},
          "pointers": {
            >>> "base": "/9/x"
          },
          "pointer_meta": {},
          "registry": {},
          "sets": {},
          "member_attributes": {},
          "member_registry": {},
          "children_meta": null,
          "children": []
        },
        {
          "id": "10b5d6d4-71d0-163c-eba2-75e1a7acd413",
          "path": "/9/RK/C",
          "attributes": {},
          "attribute_meta": {},
          "pointers": {
            >>> "base": "/9/x"
          },
          "pointer_meta": {},
          "registry": {},
          "sets": {},
          "member_attributes": {},
          "member_registry": {},
          "children_meta": null,
          "children": []
        }
      ]
    },

[brollb]

Yeah, that looks incorrect. Do you mind adding a test for it? I have a similar test here that it could follow (both in code placement and approach :) ).