Messages

1

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: MDG Integration Tool for Microsoft Office & SysML Version Selection

« on: January 27, 2017, 05:27:13 am »

Update: I changed around my labeling of stereotype within the spreadsheet to reflect how Sparx seems to do it. (previously I just had specified extendedRequirement, now I am using "SysML1.4::extendedRequirement". This seems to have solved my problem. Thanks for the help!

2

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: MDG Integration Tool for Microsoft Office & SysML Version Selection

« on: January 26, 2017, 10:41:57 am »

Hmm, I made those changes and yet it still imports SysML 1.1 requirements. Might this have to do with how I am trying to import a spreadsheet consisting of a full model's worth of information? I thought the import tool recognized different packages/diagrams i.e the overall hierarchy and that by specifying SysML 1.4 the import tool would work as expected. This is not the case.

3

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / MDG Integration Tool for Microsoft Office & SysML Version Selection

« on: January 25, 2017, 10:21:42 am »

Hello,

I am experimenting with a trial of the MDG Integration Tool for Microsoft Office and have come across an interesting problem with the Import from Excel. When importing requirements from a spreadsheet generated by the Export to Excel add-on, the SysML version of the requirement changes. Stereotype remains constant, but SysML 1.4 requirements become SysML 1.1 when imported back into the program.

I am assuming that this is a problem with my Import from Excel profile, but none of the options that I have tried so far have remedied the problem. Is this just a limitation of the Excel importer?

Thanks!

4

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: MDG Integration for Microsoft Office Help

« on: January 13, 2017, 05:38:12 am »

Is this documentation available during the trial period too? I have not been able to find it.

5

General Board / Re: Diagram Formatting for Generated Documents

« on: July 29, 2016, 10:03:13 am »

In case anyone in the future has this same problem, I contact Sparx support and they correctly figured that it was the fact that I removed page borders from Diagram Properties (F5). Uncheck "Hide Page Borders" and you shouldn't have any issues getting the "Divide Diagram into Multiple Pages" feature to work as intended.

6

General Board / Re: Diagram Formatting for Generated Documents

« on: July 26, 2016, 07:08:01 am »

Could the version of Word matter? Even though this problem persists through all three file type exports.

7

General Board / Re: Diagram Formatting for Generated Documents

« on: July 26, 2016, 02:05:06 am »

I wish I had your magic touch. I have tried exactly this and all I get is small piece of the diagram. Unfortunately I can't post screenshots, but its like a window pane onto the diagram. No further pages. 

8

General Board / Diagram Formatting for Generated Documents

« on: July 23, 2016, 03:05:38 am »

Hi,

I'm having a little trouble correctly formatting diagrams that stretch well beyond readability. These are SysML 1.4 requirements diagrams. I tried selecting the "Divide Diagram into Multiple Pages" option, but all that does is present a small, chopped off snapshot of the diagram in question without any amount of it being divided between further pages of the document.

Could this have to do with the fact that I am exporting into .docx ? Every time I open an exported document in Word it prompts me saying that the XML elements are not compatible (or something of that nature) and that they will be deleted. The only issue is that exporting into PDF and RTF makes no difference. Has anyone else had this issue? Couldn't find much using search.

9

General Board / Re: Documentation question re: requirement "text"

« on: July 14, 2016, 11:31:10 am »

I've tried that already, but when I generate a document it doesn't seem to become part of the document. I am probably not calling the correct value, but thanks for affirming that I am on the right track!

10

General Board / Re: Documentation question re: requirement "text"

« on: July 14, 2016, 04:28:49 am »

I would however greatly appreciate it if anyone could point me in the right direction with regards to the exact field input I need to set up, this is sort of a time sensitive thing. As much as I would love to spend days exploring the software and figuring this out myself.

11

General Board / Re: Documentation question re: requirement "text"

« on: July 14, 2016, 02:09:35 am »

Aye, I've been experimenting with the Requirements - details report to no such luck, I'll return here with anything I can't necessarily solve via google or experimentation.

12

General Board / Documentation question re: requirement "text"

« on: July 13, 2016, 11:35:54 am »

Hi,

I have been experimenting with document generation for requirements and I can't seem to quite figure out how to modify a template to generate a document including requirement "text" values. I used this for displaying requirement text on the diagram, but only notes seemed to be exported and displayed in my generated documents.

Is the solution to create a template for this specific need or some feature of which I am as of now unaware? Thanks!

13

General Board / Re: Converting Between <<requirement>> and <<extendedRequirement>>

« on: July 09, 2016, 09:11:12 am »

Wow, thank-you! I only had 65 or so requirements so I just redid them all as extendedRequirements, but that will help so much next time  (although I don't think I'm making that mistake again).

14

General Board / Re: Converting Between <<requirement>> and <<extendedRequirement>>

« on: July 08, 2016, 06:52:04 am »

Ah, ok thanks! I wish I was more fluent in scripting a solution to this problem. In time hopefully I'll be at that point in my understanding of the software. Thanks for the help!

15

General Board / Re: Converting Between <<requirement>> and <<extendedRequirement>>

« on: July 08, 2016, 03:01:58 am »

Ah, I just realized that you meant to export and then import an altered file. Would I just be altering the stereotype and/or Fully Qualified stereotype or would I have to alter the GUID?

Thanks!