Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Paolo F Cantoni

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 391
Bugs and Issues / Re: To rectangle or not to rectangle?
« on: October 03, 2017, 10:45:11 am »
There appears to be a bug that selecting NONE for the default image sets a value that other parts of EA believes a value has been assigned. In particular, it is preventing a shape script from rendering, which means the base UML renders.

The result of selecting NONE should be identical to having never set a default image.

Setting the alternate image (not default) to none draws correctly. However I did notice that if I explicitly set an image and then clear it, the label for the datastore is removed.

Of course, this does not tell HOW it will be rectified. I'd guess that the setting of the Default Image will be corrected.

Their reply is what I expected.  In other words, they confirm that setting/unsetting the image is, effectively, orthogonal to whether or not rectangular notation is invoked.  At least it means we won't have to change our shapescripts.


When in the Matrix Diagram, it appears one can't use keyboard shortcuts.  I tried a couple [SHift+F9 and [Ctrl+F9] and neither worked.  This doesn't happen in other "special" diagrams such as the Model Search page.


Bugs and Issues / Project Types not disabled when project is not loaded
« on: October 02, 2017, 05:44:44 pm »
When you open EA without a specific project, the Configure | Reference Data | UML Types ribbon item is (correctly) disabled.  However, while the individual items below the ribbon dropdown Configure | Reference Data | Project Type s are also (correctly) disabled, the item itself is not.  I thought it was a "standard" UI/UX pattern that "disabledness" should percolate "upwards".  Am I wrong?


Bugs and Issues / Re: To rectangle or not to rectangle?
« on: October 02, 2017, 05:37:29 pm »
Reply from Sparx: This has been confirmed to be corrected in a future build.

What EXACTLY did they confirm they will rectify?

It's not clear to me which of a number of bugs you have identified (in this thread) they are intending to fix.


Bugs and Issues / Suppress Relationships still shows NoteLinks!
« on: October 02, 2017, 11:34:36 am »
If you unmark the Diagram Properties | Connectors | [ ] Show Relationships, the Relationships currently visible in the Diagram are suppressed.  However, this is NOT true for Notelinks - they are still visible!  While acknowledging that they may be implemented using a different technology, they are ALSO implemented as normal relationships.  Especially in the latter case, and particularly where stereotyped (and do NOT involve a Note item), they should be suppressed.


5) When I want to use by callable process(es) in other process diagrams, simple re-use from the library package as LINK

In fact, this is explicitly illegal in BPMN. The fact that this method doesn't work is the reason why this question is being asked in the first place.
Indeed so!  I'm not so experienced in BPMN  that I could say so - so thanks for clarifying that.  Which then brought to mind our solution to that problem.  We don't have a lot of BPMN procedures in our repository yet, but of the few we do, we acknowledge that BNMN requires that each behaviour item in a process is unique and you need to use the isCalledActivity property to link to the calledActivityRef.  In this case, we prefaced the name of the unique instance with a ":" (similar to the Class:Object notation) and named it the same as the called behaviour.  This had the added benefit that we could link the calling and called behaviours with an "InstanceOf" relationship and also note any parameters required in the notes field.

We feel that the ":" mechanism allows us to visually indicate a call (even in places where you can't see the full item (such as in the browser).  It immediately identifies the called behaviour and allows a visual check when showing the InstanceOf relationship.


Unfortunately, we have provided all the languages available for the dictionary software already.

One "trick" that you might be able to use is to replace one of the existing languages.  Once upon a time, we needed to Test that our localisation was working correctly, but we mainly spoke English.  So I replaced the Estonian settings (sorry Estonia) with "Testonian" (pun intended) - a modified form of English that would ensure that any localised caption could be highlighted, but still be legible by the Developers and Testers.


General Board / Re: What is Sparx and for what purposes it should be used
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:59:52 am »
Sunshine: +1

(to help Mark Twain)

+1 (Sunshine)


General Board / Re: too many stereotypes
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:57:48 am »
Don't forget that connectors, attributes, operations and diagrams can also have stereotypes.


General Board / Re: Filtering Matrices
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:55:06 am »
Note the source of the row or columns of the matrix could be a selected package or a search. If you select a search, you can specify the search filter using the parameters you want, as the stereotype and any other.
That's the route we've taken.

We've found we use a lot of TVs to enable us to control which items appear on which matrix.


Bugs and Issues / Re: To rectangle or not to rectangle?
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:51:14 am »
Well, I'm trying to use EA sparxish. I want to see rectangle notation and voila the Default Image did that. But obviously it'a a cul-de-sac. Simply speaking: having Use Rectangle Notation available for ALL elements would just be fine. But unfortunately someone tried to be smart here and just showed this option only in certain circumstances.

Yes, as someone once said...

Concistency, konsistency, consistensy! TMUffe - after Paolo


Bugs and Issues / Re: To rectangle or not to rectangle?
« on: September 29, 2017, 10:37:47 am »
I'm trying to switch between MDG stereotyped rendering and rectangle notation. So what I did is this:

- Create a BPMN2.0/Business Process/Data Store which renders a nice disk cylinder shape
- Now from the context menu Appearance/Select Default Image
- Leave NONE in the menu (why the hell does the dialog pop up at all since it promises to set the "Default Image" and not the "Alternate Image" like the menu option below)
- The element renders rectangular

Now, that's nice and what I wanted to achieve. But how can I switch back to the MDG stereotype display again? It seems that I can't. First, I can't find any option for that. Second, when I delete the diagram objects and drag it once again from the browser I get the rectangle notation. Why? Because t_object.StyleEx now has DefalutImage=0; which forces the element to appear as rectangle each time you drag it onto a diagram.

Bug (not) reported (after Paolo).


P.S. I tried sending a bug report but the form refused to give a Version dropdown entry while requiring an entry right there. Oh My God!

I think you may be confusing image and image.  I don't think rectangular notation has anything to do with an image (as in graphical ima, png, jpeg etc.).  To convert from non-rectangular to rectangular, as your book says, you just need to set UCRect=1; in the Stylex.  If the diagram object doesn't support the [ ] Use Rectangular Notation Menu item, there's NO way AFAIK to change that via the UI.  You need a script.  Unfortunately, even if the script sets the value correctly if the shapescript for the object actively suppresses rectangular notation, you are at its mercy!  I think the Datastore is one such.  You just have to go back and change the shapescript.


Unlike the Created Date which is rendered as disabled (light grey font), the Diagram Modified Date is not so rendered even though it is similarly disabled.


We'd like to be able to create diagram types that include a Stereotype for the Diagram.  Of the available properties in the diagram profile, "stereotype" doesn't seem to be one of them.  Is it possible, currently, to do this or do I need to put in a Feature Request?



The problem with that approach is that your "reusable" callable processes are not linked to a bunch of other elements so you don't really know anymore what is part of a process model and what not.
In an extreme case you could have re-used two callable processes on two different diagrams. Now suppose you link those two in the second business process diagram.

Because you are re-using the elements, the link between the two callable processes will now also be visible on your first business process diagram, without your knowledge, and probably also without your intention.

I think all elements displayed on a BPMN business process diagram should be owned by that business process to avoid any mishaps.

It may not have been your intention, but that was the result!  Isn't that part of the reason why we model?  "If you can see the problem, you can see the problem!"  If, on the other hand, it's not a problem, then "without loss of generality", the visible link will be OK.


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 391