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 - Graham_Moir

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46
17
General Board / Re: Find Command in EA 13
« on: June 08, 2017, 02:22:16 am »
"Find Command" doesn't always appear. 

It depends on the 'Application Look' you have chosen. 

If you choose Office 2016, then it definitely appears, not sure which others support it. 

18
Bugs and Issues / Re: Connector: Aggregation. Notation lost
« on: June 02, 2017, 08:49:52 pm »
I raised this as a support issue, and the problem appears to be as Paolo has described.

Here's the info from Sparx:

"the earliest aggregations (with the lowest IDs) are Associations with the stereotype 'ArchiMate_Aggregation', then there is a single NoteLink with the stereotype 'ArchiMate3::ArchiMate_Aggregation', and then after that there are many Associations with stereotype 'ArchiMate3::ArchiMate_Aggregation'.  It appears that the stereotyped NoteLink was created accidentally and that caused subsequent problems......  We are working on a fix to prevent the same thing happening in the future.   Issue ID: 17056234..... "

And for new aggregations
".... the problem is that there is now a stereotype named "ArchiMate3::ArchiMate_Aggregation" in the stereotypes table. When you create an Archimate aggregation from the toolbox, EA looks for a stereotype match for "ArchiMate3::ArchiMate_Aggregation" and finds an incorrect match in the stereotypes table when it is hoped it would have instead found "ArchiMate_Aggregation" in the "ArchiMate3" profile. Deleting the stereotype "ArchiMate3::ArchiMate_Aggregation" from the stereotypes table will prevent any future incorrect matching."


19
General Board / Re: Re-using standard shapescripts
« on: June 02, 2017, 08:34:55 pm »
My shapescript repository is found on github at: https://github.com/GeertBellekens/Enterprise-Architect-Shapescript-Library

It contains all shapescripts of all MDG's that are shipped with EA (with the approval of Sparx) along with some of my own, and some other contributions.

Geert

That's really great Geert, thank you.

20
General Board / Re-using standard shapescripts
« on: June 01, 2017, 03:29:17 am »

I would like to re-use the standard shape that is rendered for a value chain element.   May be a silly question, but is that possible?  In other words can I access the shapescript code for a value chain element and then apply it to a different element via the UML types dialogue ?

21
Bugs and Issues / Re: Connector: Aggregation. Notation lost
« on: May 19, 2017, 07:37:07 am »
Initially created from the toolbox before the issue arose and the same way now.  F3 is used to repeat the connector from time to time.  Quicklinker not used for this.

It's "Aggregation" from the Archimate 3 structural relationships toolbox.  The stereotypes and roles etc.. are the same for connectors with the diamond and those without it.

No MDGs have been enabled/disabled.

Just to recap, this has been working for a frew weeks but has stopped.  My behaviour as an EA user hasn't changed, same element types, same connectors, but rendering is different without the diamond being shown. 

Very odd.

22
Bugs and Issues / Connector: Aggregation. Notation lost
« on: May 19, 2017, 04:21:26 am »
So I've been using this connector a lot over the last couple of weeks and have not had a problem with the diamond notation at one end of the connector.  Until today, when exactly the same connector has lost the diamond and I can't get it back. 

It's disappeared in some cases on some diagrams for existing connectors but not across the board,  however all new connectors are just a plain line at both ends - no diamond at all.  I am using the exact same method to create these that I have used without problems in the last couple of weeks.

Anyone come across this?   And is there a fix?

23
Less/Fewer becoming synonymous is an issue in the UK as well.

And then we have the negative influence from American English.  One example that particularly annoys me, and is similar to the horrible "agreeance" mentioned by Roy,  is "learnings",  as in "we need to review the learnings from that project",  meaning "lessons learnt".   Learning, as we pedants know, has a completely different meaning and does not have a plural.
Graham, I'm not so sure on this.  This may genuinely be a case of language evolving (as opposed to the usual devolving).  Using a word incorrectly is NOT "evolution", it's wrong!  (as in agreeance!)

It might be interesting to work through this (and it even has a direct involvement with modelling - since many of us are building ontologically related models).

Can you give your definition of "Learning" (and, preferably, its source) and why you believe the usage you described is incorrect?

We (currently) have 2 definitions for "Learning" in our Onto-Terminological model.  One is the verbal form, one the nounal.  The usage that annoys you could be a specialization of our nounal definition.

Paolo

Hi Paolo,  you are may well be right about the evolution of language, although I lean towards the noun "learning" being used incorrectly.   A quick double check with a dictionary confirms it doesn't have a plural and means some form of body of knowledge rather than being a synonym for lesson. 

24
Less/Fewer becoming synonymous is an issue in the UK as well.

And then we have the negative influence from American English.  One example that particularly annoys me, and is similar to the horrible "agreeance" mentioned by Roy,  is "learnings",  as in "we need to review the learnings from that project",  meaning "lessons learnt".   Learning, as we pedants know, has a completely different meaning and does not have a plural.


25
General Board / Re: EA Sparx crashing - 'A required resource'
« on: April 26, 2017, 06:21:34 pm »

Yes, I have been encountering it as well, although every hour or so rather than 15-20 minutes.  But as there has been no apparent pattern to the problem it's difficult to report to Sparx with any meaningful info for investigation. 

26

So I guess you'll either have to revise your security policy (which is flawed anyway, why would you want to allow people to create relations to things they are not allowed to change?)


Actually I'm not sure it's flawed.  We have the situation where the Enterprise (Business) Architects have defined corporate "Capabilities" and "Functions" amongst other things.   We want the Solution Architects to link/create relationships to these elements/objects so that we can understand which projects, new solutions, existing systems etc. etc. relate to those top level entities.  But we definitely don't want anyone except the Enterprise Architects to change the definition of them. 

27
Definitely +1.  Agree with AndyJ as well.

28
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Proper Security
« on: March 15, 2017, 09:00:33 pm »

Sparx has announced that row-level security/locking is coming, although exactly what that means hasn't been defined/communicate yet as far as I know.

29

OK, have you logged an official bug report/support issue?

30
Hi EA experts,
the recently introduced feature of discussing elements in EA...

This has actually been around for quite a while.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46