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 - PeterHeintz

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 50
Bugs and Issues / Re: V13 State Machine Fork/Join Z-Order problem
« on: October 17, 2016, 07:35:19 pm »
Fixed in build 1306!

In atomic actions, EA allows to insert text to an Effect property.
This text can be shown in a diagram “Show Effect in Diagram".

The text editor allows you to insert in that Effect property e.g. some kind of pseudocode (with line breaks) to describe the effect.

However in the diagram the effect is shown as a single line and the width of the action is expanded to fit to that effect text line.

Please keep the line breaks when the effect is shown in the diagram!!!!

General Board / Re: Should our organisation migrate to EA12.1 or EA13?
« on: October 12, 2016, 11:40:10 pm »
We stil stay on V12 and we know some issues to be fixed in V13, before we switch (maybe Build 1307).

Info from Sparx: A correction (option to revert to the old style ) has been made and will be included in a future release.

Bugs and Issues / Re: V13 State Machine Fork/Join Z-Order problem
« on: October 12, 2016, 07:33:49 pm »
Issue is confirmed by Sparx.
I personally hope that next build have it fixed.

Hi Simon,
Yes, I understand that.

Anyhow, I assume that you (Sparx) have some kind of possibilities to influence the UML spec.

I would be happy if you would try to get an “OR” in the spec.

I personally think it is a weak kind of specification, when it leads to  “What you see is either xxx or yyy.

Bugs and Issues / Re: V13 State Machine Fork/Join Z-Order problem
« on: October 11, 2016, 05:21:44 pm »
The issue is under review with reference number: 16104697

Bugs and Issues / Re: V13 State Machine Fork/Join Z-Order problem
« on: October 11, 2016, 03:13:07 am »
Yes, I created a "Registered Bug Report".

Bugs and Issues / V13 State Machine Fork/Join Z-Order problem
« on: October 11, 2016, 02:50:31 am »
I have a state machine created with V12.

Within that state machine I have a state ( top level state) containing concurrent sub states. Within the top level state I have Forks/Joins.

These Forks/Joins are visible in V12 but not visible in V13.

Moving the Z-order of the top level state to bottom makes the Forks/Joins visible in V13 as those are visible in V12.

However when closing and opening the diagram the  Fork/Joins are not visible again.

Ok, I had a look to the specification and indeed now EA conforms to UML 2.5.

However I think the old  EA implementation was better than now complying to the Spec..

Because former it was easy possible to call Activities e.g. twice and differentiate by name, still seeing that it is the same thing you are calling.
Now you have to do that somehow else.

Even more strange, according UML 2.5. for Call Operation Actions it is still possible to do what is mentioned above.

Yes, there is something wrong in V13.
When you have a “Call behavior” with no name the called activity name is shown as name rather than as call classifier. Once you add a name to your action that name is shown and the name of the called activities disappears.
I will initiate a bug report, because for me that is a V13 showstopper.

As already stated somewhere in the form, I have several use cases for using the decision table feature, but for me it is useless just because of the “very primitive” implementation.

As I remember it is even not possible to rearrange things, apart of deleting and adding anew.

I cannot imagine who gets value from that feature with the current implementation.

General Board / Re: Scope of specification manager
« on: October 10, 2016, 07:39:05 pm »
If that works for you, fine!

But keep in might that this is more to view/look on things rather than specifying things.

General Board / Re: Scope of specification manager
« on: October 08, 2016, 04:35:10 am »
AFAIK there is unfortunately no feature to do such things, expect doing an sql select.
However there is the RaQuest plugin providing such a feature (not sure if you can edit tags).

I do not really know the Archimate 2 implementation, but from what you describe it is pretty clear that Archimate 2 impementation “overwrites” the UML Object by the stereotype “ArchiMate_DataObject”, and one part of this “overwrite” is to overwrite the presentation features (how the object can looks like on a diagram) with a sharp script.

By removing the “ArchiMate_DataObject”  stereotype you convert your ArchiMate object to a UML object.
So either Archimate or the Sparx Archimate implementation does not satisfy your needs.

I do not say, that what you have done is bad, but your model is now not a pure Archimate model but a mixture between Archimate and UML.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 50