Book a Demo

Author Topic: Ordering attributes by stereotype under IF element  (Read 5248 times)

andykennelly

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Ordering attributes by stereotype under IF element
« on: January 06, 2014, 08:51:48 pm »
I'm creating attributes under an interface element. The attributes will be one of 2 stereotypes, <<input>> or <<output>>. For purposes of clarity I want all the <<input>> attributes to appear together immediately under the interface, and for all the <<output>> attributes to appear under the <<input>> attributes.

However, Sparx applies alphabetical ordering based on the attribute name.

Can I overide this with ordering based on alphabetical ordering of stereotypes (which will put all my input's first)??

(I've searched on various combination of ordering/attributes' in sparx help and on the forum, but found nothing).

Any ideas?????

Geert Bellekens

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 13523
  • Karma: +574/-33
  • Make EA work for YOU!
    • View Profile
    • Enterprise Architect Consultant and Value Added Reseller
Re: Ordering attributes by stereotype under IF ele
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2014, 10:41:57 pm »
Yes, there is an option to group features by stereotype.
In Tools|Options|Objects the checkboxes
- Group Operations by stereotype and
- Group Attributes by stereotype.

This will only affect the order on diagrams, not in the project browser.

Geert

andykennelly

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Ordering attributes by stereotype under IF ele
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2014, 12:39:54 am »
Thanks, Geert. That's helpful. I assume from what you say that there's no way to impose stereotype ordering within the project browser as well??

Geert Bellekens

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 13523
  • Karma: +574/-33
  • Make EA work for YOU!
    • View Profile
    • Enterprise Architect Consultant and Value Added Reseller
Re: Ordering attributes by stereotype under IF ele
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2014, 05:53:56 pm »
Indeed, not without writing an add-in that is.

Geert