BUG: If I'd wanted a composite activity...

[Paolo F Cantoni]

It is true that a correctly formed Activity diagram is, itself, an activity.

(I'm not sure if then [size=13]UML 2.1.1 Superstructure (formal)[/size] Specification says this explicitly - but you can work it out from first principles...)

So it may surprise you to find I was annoyed when I dragged an activity diagram onto another activity diagram and got a new composite activity on the diagram (and an unwanted actual activity in the browser - nowhere near the diagram)...

Why was I annoyed?  Well if I'd wanted a composite activity I would have asked for one - I asked for a hyperlink!  I got a NEW activity (NOT nesting the original diagram) and a composite activity - NOT the hyperlink I asked for.

Maybe on planet Sparx when you ask for a gfrpsprkl you get a braphump instead - but on sargasso's planet, users usually like to get what they asked for.

There's no way to put a hyperlink to an activity diagram in another activity diagram (without resorting to subterfuge).

When dragging the activity diagram onto the other one, an additional option (  ) Create composite activity should be added (if the activity doesn't already exist).  The hyperlink option should be retained - and if selected, create a hyperlink, just like on other diagrams.

If the composite activity IS created, then the diagram should be moved (in the browser) to be nested within the activity - Not left, on its own, "like a Shag on a rock"!

Consistency, Consistency, Consistency! ^TM
Paolo

[size=0]©2007 Paolo Cantoni, -Semantica-[/size]

[Martin Terreni]

If the composite activity IS created, then the diagram should be moved (in the browser) to be nested within the activity - Not left, on its own, "like a Shag on a rock"!

Sorry, on this specifically I don't agree (if I understand correctly).
If I reuse an activity diagram in several other diagrams it seems it is an independent activity, so it should not be moved under any of them.This way if I change it I only change it in one place transparently to the other diagrams. basic objcect oriented approach.

[sargasso]

BZZZZZZZZZZZAASIJJWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPP!

I just went and checked.  At Build 799, if you drag an activity diagram onto an activity diagram, you get a popup asking you if you want a Diagram Reference, Diagram Frame or Hyperlink.

Diagram Frame and Diagram Reference both create a new activity in the proper place in the tree and you are prompted for property information.

Hyperlink does create a new composite element in the tree but it does so in the right place.  Neither does it prompt you for property info.  Further, although the activity is tagged as composite, its' expansion is correctly linked to the original diagram.  So it's a pseudo-composite?

Poalo, are you saying that the behaviour you're seeing is now deviating from the previous behaviour (which I deem to be "what I wanted")?

bruce


p.s. Up here we just insist on consistent inconsistency.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Sorry, on this specifically I don't agree (if I understand correctly).
If I reuse an activity diagram in several other diagrams it seems it is an independent activity, so it should not be moved under any of them.This way if I change it I only change it in one place transparently to the other diagrams. basic object oriented approach.

Martin,

I think I didn't explained myself well enough, since bruce also is having trouble with my point.

Point 1) If I wanted a new "Activity" I would have said so and I should have been asked. NOT create a new (unwanted) activity when I ask for hyperlink.

Now to point 2) When it creates this new activity is rather arbitrary (and seems to be) related to the "locale" of the diagram you are placing the "hyperlink" into.  If you do things in a certain order and circumstances everything may appear to OK.

However, by triggering the "Cantoni Effect", the circumstances for my example, the created activity was 2 levels away from where the original diagram was.  Now the diagram on its own comes under the package.  But the new activity, even if created at the same level as the original diagram, cannot be created in the same place as the diagram.

So there's a problem there.

bruce, the behaviour you describe is essentially what I saw.  My point is not that the pseudo-composite behaves like a hyperlink (all composites behave like a hyperlink - that's why they're not really composites), BUT that it's not what I wanted!  I wanted a hyperlink - just like the other hyperlinks on that diagram

Martin, What I was trying to say was that if the activity is created, the diagram (preexisting) needs to be moved to be nested under the new activity - because if I'd made the activity composite and then double-clicked it, it would have created a new diagram there.

Where the new activity is create seems to be problematic, but that's a separate issue...

Hope that clarifies things...
Paolo

[Martin Terreni]

Martin, What I was trying to say was that if the activity is created, the diagram (preexisting) needs to be moved to be nested under the new activity - because if I'd made the activity composite and then double-clicked it, it would have created a new diagram there.

Maybe I still don't understand, but I like having the possibility of creating a diagram which is actually an activity and reuse in many diagrams.

Yet, as you say, it may rather be stated in a different way when dropping (like "Create as activity"), since it does look different than other hyper links. Regarding the place where it is created, I've never given a thought about it...

[KP]

If I'd wanted a composite activity...

In fact, you have told EA that that's what you want. If you want to tell EA otherwise, clear this option: Tools > Options > Diagram > Behavior > Use Automatic SubActivities.

[RoyC]

Also:

http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/EAUserGuide/index.html?hyperlinks.htm

See the end of the topic, the subsection "Creating Hyperlinks Between Diagrams".

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Tools > Options > Diagram > Behavior > Use Automatic SubActivities...

Sorry Neil,

NOT good enough...    In less clicks, I can achieve the same end by subterfuge.

Besides, the action of this "intuitive" setting should be to cause the default setting for the drag dialog to be (*) Create New activity - Not to change the explicit meaning of (  ) Hyperlink.

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Maybe I still don't understand, but I like having the possibility of creating a diagram which is actually an activity and reuse in many diagrams.

Martin,

It's not that an activity diagram can be an activity in another diagram - I allowed than in the very first line of my original post.  It's how and why it got there.

To the normal user - EA did NOT do what it said it would do - create a hyperlink that looks just like the others.  It also created an unwanted activity.

This is about User Interaction and Interface Design - my perennial (I can now say that as I've been complaining for nearly 3 years) beef with EA.

Paolo

[KP]

Sorry Neil,

NOT good enough...

My apologies - I've been back and edited my previous post to clarify the point I was making...

[Paolo F Cantoni]

My apologies - I've been back and edited my previous post to clarify the point I was making...

With Respect, Neil...

I haven't told EA that's what I want, YOU (or Sparx) have said so.  I had NO idea that that's what that setting did (even if I knew it existed - which I didn't).

EA should provide feedback to the user that that is the current state of the option setting BY CHANGING THE PROMPT on the dialog.

Obviously, Sparx have decided that the default behaviour (out of the box) should the observed behaviour is as I described above.  Sparx has the right to do that - no question!  Setting aside the point that the actions in situ are questionable, what Sparx DOESN'T have the right to do is to change the putative behaviour (of a common dialog box) without giving the user some indication that the this will be the case!

Event if Sparx doesn't change the interface as I suggested (to add a new option for creating activities in addition to standard hyperlinks) - you must change the dialog content depending on the state of the Option setting.

Besides, even given the state of the setting, I may want to override on any given occasion.

Paolo

[Martin Terreni]

I would have to agree with that...

[sargasso]

EA should provide feedback to the user that that is the current state of the option setting BY CHANGING THE PROMPT on the dialog.

... and further Neil, don't forget that its isn't exactly a "composite element" that it is creating.

It creates a "normal" element relative to the current diagram with its double click action set to a diagram in a different package.

Proof:

1 Create an activity diagram
2 Create an activity in it and set it as a composite.  Note where the element and the child diagram are created in the tree
3. Drag an existing activity diagram from somewhere else and select "hyperlink".  Note the element created for it - it has no diagram.
4. Using the context menu, toggle the "Composite" state of the dragged element off and then on.  Look what you get.

Expected behaviour?  Maybe on Alpha Sparxsus IV.


bruce

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Maybe on Alpha Sparxsus IV.

Tut tut...  

Alpha Sparcis IV   [size=10](after Crux-Crucis)[/size]

Alpha Spargis IV   [size=10](after Lex-Legis)[/size]

pretty much never:
Alpha Sparxis IV

and definitely not...
Alpha Sparxsus IV


Cantonii Paulus

[sargasso]

Sorry, yer 'onour, I must have been suffering a momentary bout of syntacticus interuptus.  

b