Integrity V1605 does nothing for MSSQL

[PeterHeintz]

When I start a DB Integrity check within V1605 for a MSSQL DB nothing seem to happen.
V1428 find integrity problems.

[qwerty]

I guess that issues (to be seen in public) have been banned by Sparx.

q.

[Takeshi K]

Hello PeterHeintz,

You need to check checkboxes in the dialog before running the integrity check. On the version 16, all checkboxes are unchecked initially.

HTH,

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Hello PeterHeintz,

You need to check checkboxes in the dialog before running the integrity check. In version 16, all checkboxes are unchecked initially.

HTH,

(my emphasis)
Why? After a decade of allowing us to set the form of the Project Integrity Check we wanted (and have it stick), was it decided to FORCE us to re-enter ALL the checkboxes we wanted (not just on the first install, not just on first run of the day, not just on first run for this EA session, BUT every time we run the dialog)

In what possible way does this make sense?

So much for running the Integrity Check often to ensure the repository is in good shape...

Sheesh!
Paolo

[Eve]

After a decade of allowing us to set the form of the Project Integrity Check we wanted (and have it stick)

It never did. The old version always loaded with everything except UML 2.0 Migration checked.

It appears that the decision was it was "better" to process one type of check at a time. I don't know if that was just because of the time taken to run the whole thing on large databases or something else.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

After a decade of allowing us to set the form of the Project Integrity Check we wanted (and have it stick)

It never did. The old version always loaded with everything except UML 2.0 Migration checked.

Oh, OK, but still easier to take-off than add-on.  Once the checks were understood, I suggest most people selected the previous default.  We certainly did.

It appears that the decision was it was "better" to process one type of check at a time. I don't know if that was just because of the time taken to run the whole thing on large databases or something else.

Surely that's OUR decision? We have large databases, and the time taken is acceptable.   If there was an issue with time, we could deselect one or more of the checks AS WE SAW FIT.
Now, it's a serious pain in the proverbial!  Why not allow a default set to be specified? Or even allow us to call the Checker via a script (I didn't see anything in the Project Class)

Paolo

[Eve]

Honestly, I wish I could help more.

It seems counter intuitive to me too, but I don't think my opinion matters. If you disagree as strongly as you seem to, write a bug report. Get others to write bug reports, because it will probably require multiple people reporting it in order to reverse the decision.

Getting angry and making false assertions here won't help though.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Honestly, I wish I could help more.

It seems counterintuitive to me too, but I don't think my opinion matters. If you disagree as strongly as you seem to, write a bug report. Get others to write bug reports because it will probably require multiple people reporting it to reverse the decision.

Getting angry and making false assertions here won't help, though.

Folks, You've heard Eve!

Get to it, and write bug reports!  I already had mine in before I posted!

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Just to indicate how well thought out this change has been (that's irony, ); when you DON'T select any tests, the PIC reports "No problems found", NOT "NO checks selected"!

Sheesh!
Paolo