7.5 Stereotype GUID changes

[Paolo F Cantoni]

We're developing a process of formally identifying changes between releases of EA.  We've been "hit" before by changes in the DB content which EA relies on for its operation which aren't back-filled into old models (Some of ours are approaching 5 years old).

Anyhow, I'll start a separate topic on agreeing on a process so we users can be confident we haven't missed something.

This topic is to investigate if what I've discovered is universal and if it is a bug.

We exported the list of stereotypes from v7.1 (build 834) (and compared them with the list of stereotypes in v7.5 (build 843)  (in both cases, we created an "Empty" project, selecting ALL the possible aspects that EA provides - for each specific version).

We discovered two new stereotypes in 843 (no surprise here - that's what the process is designed to do...).  However, we also discovered that ALL the stereotype GUIDS have changed.

Now we're not sure of the impact of this.  From first principles, I would have expected them NOT to have changed... I mean we keep OURS in line by exporting the list from our master repository and importing it into our working ones.  In addition there IS an error message from the Tools|Data Management[ch9658]Project Integrity check [Shift + F9] process that concerns fixing mismatched stereotype GUIDs - so EA obviously thinks stereotype GUID mismatching is harmful.

Can a Sparxian, or anyone, tell me what's going on and what we should do about it?

What are the consequences of having more than one identified stereotype with more than one GUID floating around a system of repositories?

TIA,
Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Do you mean EA 7.1 (build 834)?

[«Midnight»]

Have you reported this as a bug?

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Have you reported this as a bug?

Well, I'm not sure it is - in Sparx's view.

In my book (and by the looks of it in yours, too) it is a bug...

But lots of things in EA that I consider bugs are "by design".  So I wanted a Sparxian to confirm or deny that this behaviour is "by design".

Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Well, perhaps you will get an answer if you report it.

Whatever 'view' you take, models can be broken on conversion. The incompatible GUIDs certainly make exchange impossible.

For example, what would you do when a former client asked for a minor tweak, perhaps sending you a model they continue to evolve, and you send back a model that's been through the conversion process. Perhaps they just want one sub-tree of the model structure. After the client discovers that your work has destroyed their model, they might ask for a way out of this jam.

Do you answer that all they need to do is upgrade their legacy EA software and contract you to redo your new tweak (so the entire models are converted on both ends)? While a new EA version might be useful to them down the line, it might not be the best response to the kinds of questions they would be asking in this case. "This is by design" might not go over too well as a justification.

IMHO of course...

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Reported...

Will keep everyone posted - or better still Sparx might...

Paolo