Newbie Question

[johnrabbit]

I am used to hierarchical structure for requirements. Looking at the EA example project, I would want the packages Manage Users, Manage Inventory as parents numbered 1, 2, ... , n. Then have their child requirements numbered 1.1, 1.2, ext. for Manage Users and 2.1, 2.2, etc. for Manage Inventory.
It might be because I've always used Word, Excel or Caliber, but I am struggling with having multiple 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc in same requirements doc.
How did you get past this type of prejudice?
Thanks
John

[qwerty]

Any such numbering scheme must be handled manually in EA. Note that EA is not a dedicated RM tool but a UML modeling tool which also can handle requirements. You might have a look at RaQuest a separate RM add-in which improves handling of requirements. Also look at the DOORS importer. It's also possible to implement some numbering scheme using a programmatic approach.

q.

[Eve]

Right click on the containing package in the project browser. Select Advanced | Turn on Level Numbering.

That's as close as you'll get for automatic behavior.

[Ian Mitchell]

I realize I'm arguing with the question, rather than fixing it, but I really think that EA has got it right in this case: allowing us to give each requirement a unique and meaningless ID (with Auto Numbering). This means we can move requirements around the specification and they still retain their unique identity. Same is true for Process modelling, who also love their 1.2.3.4.5.6 numbering.
But as Q correctly observes, EA doesn't have all the 'stuff' which dedicated RM tools have, which, having used some, is a good thing!

[qwerty]

But as Q correctly observes, EA doesn't have all the 'stuff' which dedicated RM tools have, which, having used some, is a good thing!

Have just used DOORS (which seems to be some kind of market leader) and know it is a PITA. EA keeps you thinking about what you do. That of course can cause a PITB (pain in the brain).

q.