Level Numbering

[Modesto Vega]

Level numbering is a great feature what it might have a slight problem, numbers apply to elements in a package but not to the package itself.

Is there away of applying Level Numbering to the package and the elements contained?

If this is not possible who do you request a feature to be added.

This what I am after:

<<package>>1: Package A
------------<<class>>1.1: Element 1
----------------<<class>>1.1.1: Element 2
----------------<<class>>1.1.2: Element 3
------------<<class>>1.2: Element 4
<<package>>2: Package B
------------<<class>>2.1: Element 1
----------------<<class>>2.1.1: Element 2
----------------<<class>>2.1.2: Element 3
------------<<class>>2.2: Element 4
------------<<class>>2.3: Element 5
<<package>>3: Package C
------------<<class>>3.1: Element 1
----------------<<class>>3.1.1: Element 2
------------<<class>>3.2: Element 4
------------<<class>>3.3: Element 5

[skiwi]

Level numbers do apply to packages.
It all depends of the way you define you master document.

Check in you template that you have ticked "Child Packages" (and "Child elements")

[Geert Bellekens]

Level numbers do apply to packages.
It all depends of the way you define you master document.

Check in you template that you have ticked "Child Packages" (and "Child elements")

I don't think the OP is talking about document generation, but about element numbering in the project browser?

We had a similar issue and we solved it rather pragmatically using dummy "numbering" elements like this

Code: [Select]

-package chapter 1
      -1 element
       +      1.1 element
       +      1.2 element
       +      1.3 element
+package chapter 2
-package chapter 3
      + <<dummy>> 1 dummy
      + <<dummy>> 2 dummy
      -3 element
       +      3.1 element
       +      3.2 element
       +      4.3 element
Geert

[Modesto Vega]

I don't think the OP is talking about document generation, but about element numbering in the project browser?

We had a similar issue and we solved it rather pragmatically using dummy "numbering" elements like this ...

You are correct, this what I am referring to. I will give this a try but I still think it would be nice to have this built in EA.

[Modesto Vega]

I hope somebody with Sparx is reading the forum. The fact that Packages do not support level numbering is really user unfriendly and is actually forcing me to re-organise a large model following the very helpful suggestion made earlier in the thread.

I suspect that this is because Packages are not implemented the same way as Elements. I hope recursive level numbering for packages and the elements they contain makes into the next release of EA. Level numbering is a very useful feature when used in conjunction with matrices.

[RoyC]

Yes, Sparx employees monitor the forum INformally and we often try to help the people who post here. However, we do not take either bug reports or feature requests from it. If you want to submit a bug report or a feature request to the appropriate section of Sparx Systems, use the Report a Bug or Feature Request options in the Support column at the bottom of this page.

[Modesto Vega]

Bug request submitted. Thanks for the pointer.

[Modesto Vega]

Level numbers do apply to packages.
It all depends of the way you define you master document.

Check in you template that you have ticked "Child Packages" (and "Child elements")

I don't think the OP is talking about document generation, but about element numbering in the project browser?

We had a similar issue and we solved it rather pragmatically using dummy "numbering" elements like this

Code: [Select]

-package chapter 1
      -1 element
       +      1.1 element
       +      1.2 element
       +      1.3 element
+package chapter 2
-package chapter 3
      + <<dummy>> 1 dummy
      + <<dummy>> 2 dummy
      -3 element
       +      3.1 element
       +      3.2 element
       +      4.3 elementGeert

Just to add further detail, interestingly the point that Geert is making is that this is only a problem because the numbering resets itself for each package. If it did not, it would not be a problem.