Learn about Webel's comprehensive SysMLv2 Workshop Seminar course!
VIDEO: The Webel SysMLv2/MBSE course has landed! Take a quick tour!
Webel now has a SysMLv2 Online Self-Study course with self-test Quizzes!

GOTCHA: Cameo 2026x: SysMLv2 Plugin: A "transition" from an empty entry entry is interpreted (consistently) as a succession not a transition (LIKELY A SPEC EXAMPLES ISSUE). WORKAROUND: Use start:stateAction

Icon class
icon_class
far fa-sticky-note
icon_class_computed
far fa-sticky-note
Note kind
GOTCHA
TOOL
Policy level
INFORMATIVE
Specification keywords
SysMLv2
SysMLv2 keywords
State
Transition
Succession
entry
then
Keywords
Click on the image to view it full size

[2026-05-15 UPDATE: After more analysis Webel IT has concluded that the spec itself has multiple inconsistent examples. The Webel SysMLv2 course has a series of slides investigating the issue and suggesting Just use start:stateAction]

Former slide analysis above is PARTIALLY OBSOLETE

Cameo 2026x SysMLv2 interprets a then from an empty entry actions as a Succession (not a Transition). Further analysis indicates this actually correct (transitions can only be between state usages).

It seem that the form shown in the SysMLv2.0 spec p.115 and p118 is itself incorrect and that form is not used in the OMG SysMLv2 sample ptc-25-04-31.sysml.

ISSUE: SysMLv2.0 spec: States: Inconsistent concerning use of entry action and notation for a "start state" in examples (cf. p.115)
Relates to
Related notes
[ISSUE, LIMITATION, MODELLING, TOOL]{INFORMATIVE} Dr Darren's Cameo2026x SysMLv2 Plugin and SysMLv2 Evaluation Plugin quick review notes: Tips, issues, workarounds, wishlist.
[ISSUE]{INFORMATIVE} ISSUE: SysMLv2.0 spec: States: Inconsistent concerning use of entry action and notation for a "start state" in examples (cf. p.115)
Related notes (backlinks)
Related snippets (extracts)
Visit also
Visit also (backlinks)