BUG: Get the primary stereotype from one place

[Paolo F Cantoni]

This one is a doozie!

In topic: [size=13] EAUI: Can't rename Resources [/size]  I comment on one of the worst kinds of design smells - more than one independent paths to ostensibly the same fact...

Here is another example.  I had requirements and I noticed that the Requirement Types is stored in the stereotype field of the t_object - and is rendered on the browser.  So I decided to see if I could create customized renderings for the various requirement types.

Success!  Add a stereotype to the Settings|UML...|UML Types|Stereotypes dialog and you get the rendering you need!

Great! Except...  (and with EA there is almost always an except...)

The next diagram, none of the stereotypes worked...

Why? Lots of checking values and stuff, reloading of diagrams, shutdown/restart of EA etc - all to no avail.

Then by chance I started using [Alt-G] (locate in browser) and I noticed that the stereotype shown in the browser changed from my stated one (obtained by opening the properties dialog) to "Functional" on the browser.  I opened the properties again - it's what I asked for (not "Functional").  How could this be? There are already numerous Browser update issues but this didn't "smell" like one.

Then I remembered that additional stereotypes are stored in t_xref.  A quick query and there is the culprit!  The stereotype in t_object was set to one value, the one in t_xref to another (the original "Functional").  Changing the stereotype using the Properties dialog for the Requirement didn't seem to fix it!

Creating a new requirement from scratch seemed to create a consistent (that work again) result in both places, but updating did not.

Unfortunately, it is the t_xref field that controls the stereotype rendering NOT the stereotype field in t_object!  (Verified by simple experiment)

The two locations MUST be synchronized correctly!

(in passing, we aren't ALLOWED to build software like (as bad as) this).

Geoffrey, you have no idea how much time is wasted trying to sort out why EA has the inconsistent behaviour it does.  Why not hire some more staff and actually fix the product?

Gob-smacked,
Paolo

[thomaskilian]

Paolo,
you're completely right. However, sometimes your rant just forces to take up the cudgels for EA. I have worked and still work with many other products. And EA does still not seem to be the worst. At least Sparx is trying to improve EA and they actually fix quite a number of bugs.

But - yes: Please, Sparx, put MORE effort in fixing things instead of adding new features. Further I think that you should staff a team to redesign major parts of the product. Take the goodies and mix it with the ideas from the users. And the come up with a new product (like you did in the past with new releases).

And another advice. Now as you have EA at hand you could make the design using EA itself. Imagine what could grow up out of such an approach.

[«Midnight»]

I hear you both.

I also heard you both when 7.0 came out. Something about all that waiting and not much improvement.

It's a very thin edge, isn't it.

Meanwhile, I've commented before that the way multiple stereotypes were handled had some hair on it. This is yet another case where it has come back to bite us. This itself is a symptom of a thornier problem.

Sooner or later we (Sparx and the user community) have to bite  the bullet and move to a new schema.

That's not something to rush into - which means it is something to start work on now, so that the necessary time, thought, and testing can go into the change.

And yes, wouldn't it be great to design the (new) product in EA? We could even strengthen the data modeling features to support the schema model. And just think of the things we could do with documentation.

Oh to live in such times!

David

[Paolo F Cantoni]

<rant>

Paolo,
you're completely right. However, sometimes your rant just forces to take up the cudgels for EA. I have worked and still work with many other products. And EA does still not seem to be the worst.

I know!  That's what's so depressing!  
I'm on record as saying that overall, EA is "the best of a bad lot".

At least Sparx is trying to improve EA and they actually fix quite a number of bugs.

Yes, they do!  But since they don't fix the majority (over years!) of the bugs reported (at least on the forum) then it is likely they CAN'T within the current design paradigm.  This is what's worrying!

But - yes: Please, Sparx, put MORE effort in fixing things instead of adding new features. Further I think that you should staff a team to redesign major parts of the product. Take the goodies and mix it with the ideas from the users. And the come up with a new product (like you did in the past with new releases).

As David mentions in the other post - you need to normalize the DB - once we get a new DB proposal, we can comment and provide feedback.  That's what NDAs are for...

And another advice. Now as you have EA at hand you could make the design using EA itself. Imagine what could grow up out of such an approach.

That used to be my standing question to CASE tool (as they were then) manufacturer's trying to sell me a tool:

"Is a CASE to a relatively simple domain (compared to most real life business domains)?  Is your CASE tool built in itself?  Why should I entrust my mission critical system to a tool that can't even model itself?"

Unfortunately, needs must...  And make no mistake, the success of our company rests on EA just as much as Sparx does.

If we can't trust the tools, we can't trust the artifacts produced by the tools - because the whole point of a modelling tool is complexity management.  We CAN'T do it manually!

</rant>

I'm, by nature, a placid bloke; but the fact I'm driven to ranting is an indication of the frustration levels.

Paolo

[«Midnight»]

<rant>
...</rant>

I'm, by nature, a placid bloke; but the fact I'm driven to ranting is an indication of the frustration levels.

Paolo

Paolo,

Yes indeed, and I too. The frustration levels can run high - we're very much in the same situation. And the fact is that some of the stronger points get punted toward the head of the queue.

So, I'm with you in general. All the same time I often wish you wouldn't. What a dilemma. Please believe that if I knew the best way through I really would tell you.

[BTW: We have taken this very seriously up here, to the extent of contemplated some real out-of-the box thinking of late. Sometime we'll discuss this on a private channel.]

It's a game of inches my friend, and we're not the only players. Geoffrey and crew have to take care of the entire bunch of us, and they are doing a pretty good job overall. The big question is how we can best help them to optimize the effort; best value for the product and such. It's easy to cite cases, but a bit tricky to translate that into practice. [Of course you know this already; please forgive my stating the obvious.]

As to the schema, we won't see this anytime soon. Nor would I want to. This is a big issue with a lot of lead time - would that it had been addressed for EA 6 or 7, but we'd have had to accept a significant delay in those versions. The longer we wait to address this the greater the size of the issue. Such is life...

Turns out you're not the only one with a rant.

Life goes on...

David

[PS: Drop a line sometime. I know what it's like - don't wait to get your head above water, just try to get your nose between the waves.]

[Paolo F Cantoni]

So, I'm with you in general. All the same time I often wish you wouldn't. What a dilemma. Please believe that if I knew the best way through I really would tell you.

OK, David, I'll drop the rants.  Since they don't seem to to much good.  (More importantly they are annoying other users!)

Looking at the topic post, the only part of it that is ranting, in my view, are the 1st, 5th and last two paragraphs...  (The 1st paragraph could be considered expository - but I'll take advice on that)   The rest is diagnosis and legitimate feedback.

Do you concur?

Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Paolo,

As I indicated, the rants serve a purpose. [Or if you prefer, put me down as one of the worst offenders.]

Please be specific as to the paragraphs you mean. I don't know whether you are including some of the 'one liners' and I could construe it either way.

Regarding the topic, as I said above this is serious and needs to be addressed. I don't think it is necessary to wait for my beloved schema update, this needs attention in the immediate term.

David

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Regarding the topic, as I said above this is serious and needs to be addressed. I don't think it is necessary to wait for my beloved schema update, this needs attention in the immediate term.

Absolutely, this defect is a consistency defect, not just structural one.

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Please be specific as to the paragraphs you mean. I don't know whether you are including some of the 'one liners' and I could construe it either way.

Yes, I was - but to be specific - the ranting is:

This one is a doozie!

[size=13][SNIP][/size]

Great! Except...  (and with EA there is almost always an except...)

[size=13][SNIP][/size]
(in passing, we aren't ALLOWED to build software like (as bad as) this).

Geoffrey, you have no idea how much time is wasted trying to sort out why EA has the inconsistent behaviour it does.  Why not hire some more staff and actually fix the product?

Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Paolo,

My point about one-liners was I was kind of hoping for:

...
<<one of>>>
In topic: [size=13] EAUI: Can't rename Resources [/size]  I comment on one of the worst kinds of design smells - more than one independent paths to ostensibly the same fact...

Here is another example.  I had requirements and I noticed that the Requirement Types is stored in the stereotype field of the t_object - and is rendered on the browser.  So I decided to see if I could create customized renderings for the various requirement types.
...
<<one of>>
Then by chance I started using [Alt-G] (locate in browser) and I noticed that the stereotype shown in the browser changed from my stated one (obtained by opening the properties dialog) to "Functional" on the browser.  I opened the properties again - it's what I asked for (not "Functional").  How could this be? There are already numerous Browser update issues but this didn't "smell" like one.

Then I remembered that additional stereotypes are stored in t_xref.  A quick query and there is the culprit!  The stereotype in t_object was set to one value, the one in t_xref to another (the original "Functional").  Changing the stereotype using the Properties dialog for the Requirement didn't seem to fix it!

Creating a new requirement from scratch seemed to create a consistent (that work again) result in both places, but updating did not.

Unfortunately, it is the t_xref field that controls the stereotype rendering NOT the stereotype field in t_object!  (Verified by simple experiment)
<<and>>
The two locations MUST be synchronized correctly!

(in passing, we aren't ALLOWED to build software like (as bad as) this).
...

What am I missing?

David