RTF numeration issues sorted out

[Oliver F.]

Yesterday I took the time to sort out the numeration issue several people (including myself) encountered and came to the following conclusion which might be helpful for others, too...

Basically there is not that much freedom in defining numeration hierarchies as one would expect. The numeration depth is not only defined by the place an object has in the model tree but, and here comes the surprising part, from the element section itself as levels are automatically adjusted.

Meaning:
- Package is the first hierarchy level 1.
- Package elements are adjusted by 2 levels (eg 1.1)
- Package element requirements are adjusted by three levels (eg. 1.1.1)
- Package diagrams should be adjusted by this logic by 2 levels (1.1) however they appear to have been adjusted by three levels also (1.1.1). Wonder whether this is a bug.
- Elements are adjusted by 2 levels (eg 1.1)
- Element constraints, scenarios and requirements always increase the level of depth by two (when Element is H1, its constraint is adjusted to H3).
- Sections below elements are adjusted by the corresponding level, except diagrams for which the same applies as for package diagrams.
- to be continued


As a result it is advisable to give all template elements the same hierarchy level (eg. Heading 1) as the RTF generator automatically adjusts levels per sections (except diagrams as it seems ...) unless you explicitely want to shift the levels.

Child packages and child elements are adjusted accordingly.

Online help and RTF white paper seem to suggest that eg. a package is H1, its elements should have H2, etc. but according to my experience this would produce a result of heading 1 for the package and heading 3 for the package element after adjustment. This occurs at least with user defined numbering.

Of course one can switch off level adjustment but in this case everything has the same level which does not look good also.

I hope this helps further for those who encountered this, too.

Oliver