Composite diagram link on artifact elements

[andykennelly]

Is there a way of creating a composite diagram link on an artifact element (in the same way you can by right-cliccking on a component and selecting 'New diagram / Select composite diagram')? The only way I can find to jump from an element on diag A to diag B is by palcing a hyperlink on diag A ..... which isn't as neat as composite diagram linking.

[Geert Bellekens]

Yes you can, but not directly.
- Create a use case (or other "normal" element) on the diagram
- Set the diagram as composite for this use case
- Go to menu option Menu|Advanced|Change Type and select "Artifact"
- Voila! You have an artifact with a composite diagram 8-)

Geert

[qwerty]

Useless to ask why the direct path is blocked while the indirect way works  

q.

[rothnic]

Is there a way to work around this if the element you wanted to manually add a composite diagram to already exists?

I was wanting to do something like this for functional requirements that have nested detailed requirements associated with them. That way the specification could have a high level break down into the functional areas, then double click on one of the functional areas, then you get the diagram that has the detailed requirements.

[qwerty]

I guess you should use the "default" way: New Diagram/Composite (if you're on V10) or Advanced/Composite (pre V10).

q.

[rothnic]

I guess you should use the "default" way: New Diagram/Composite (if you're on V10) or Advanced/Composite (pre V10).

q.

Ah, for some reason I thought I remembered that requirements didn't give you the option. I wish the composite option was available for any element to provide flexibility. e.g. a part within an IBD

[qwerty]

Well, it should and is available for almost all. Except for at least Artifact where you need the trick Geert mentioned. Orthogonality is not one of EA's strengths.

q.

[KP]

I wish the composite option was available for any element to provide flexibility. e.g. a part within an IBD

I think all Classifiers (including Artifacts) should be allowed to be composite. Disagree about Parts though: They get their structure from their property type, so you should be modeling the composite structure of the type not the Part.

[rothnic]

I wish the composite option was available for any element to provide flexibility. e.g. a part within an IBD

I think all Classifiers (including Artifacts) should be allowed to be composite. Disagree about Parts though: They get their structure from their property type, so you should be modeling the composite structure of the type not the Part.

Absolutely, but there is no way to intuitively "link" back to the composite structure of the part's type. If you wanted to give the user a way to jump to a composite diagram that describes the type from within the composite diagram, you must drop a diagram link into the higher level composite diagram.

IMO, I think any visual symbol should have the ability to link to any diagram, and in any of these cases, they should be able to directly link to the diagram, or alternatively show the scaled diagram onto the symbol.

Also, think of it in the sense of an activity diagram. Best practice I have been taught to use is that an activity diagram will invoke actions, which in turn could be described further in their own activity diagram. This is indicated by the "fork" on the action symbol, and you can double click they symbol to reach the lower level activity diagram. However, you can not do this for a part in an IBD, which is the inconsistency I'm referring to.