Messages

1

General Board / Re: A good Use Case template for RTF

« on: February 09, 2011, 08:22:12 am »

A few mods to the Use Case Scenario template should suffice, as you've indicated. I do find the template editing process a bit confusing. I also don't seem to get the problem of your missing first letter. Although in my case, I prefer not having them listed at the top at all, and have removed that part of the template.

2

General Board / Re: Generated robustness diagrams--no UI objects

« on: February 17, 2011, 07:15:24 am »

Also, I have two alternate flows. One is user initiated

4a. User Cancels
1. The user decides not to load the project and chooses Cancel

the other system initiated

5a System can't load XYZ file
1. The system fails to load the XYZ Project File

(The continuation of the basic flow is as follows)

3. The system displays a standard file browsing dialog, filtered on the XYZ Project File extension
4. The user browses for and chooses the XYZ Project File containing his project
5. The system extracts the Project Details from the XYZ Project File

Only in the second case do I get the alternate flow appearing on the diagram. What's wrong here?

PS: None of my entity classes are showing up on the diagram.

3

General Board / Re: Generated robustness diagrams--no UI objects

« on: February 16, 2011, 02:59:05 pm »

Ok I have a question. I have the following first steps of a use case:

1. The system displays the Main Application Window
2. The User chooses the Open Project option from the Main Application Window

Use is an actor, Main Application Window is a screen

The generated robustness diagram does not generate an association between the User and the Main Application Window

However if I re-word the first step thus:

1. The system displays the Main Application Window to the User

Isn't line 2 of the use case enough to form this association? Thanks.

4

General Board / Re: Generated robustness diagrams--no UI objects

« on: February 16, 2011, 01:38:14 pm »

Thanks for that. I have an ICONIX book and I'll go through it more systematically. The ICONIX facilities in EA look very useful.

5

General Board / Re: Generated robustness diagrams--no UI objects

« on: February 16, 2011, 01:01:37 pm »

<I've put this on hold until I investigate more   >

6

General Board / Re: Generated robustness diagrams--no UI objects

« on: February 16, 2011, 11:27:44 am »

An update.. I've had some success. I created a new model based on the ICONIX 'pattern' and started with that as a base. I added some steps to their Use Case1 and had it refer to their existing Class 1 and Subclass 1 elements, and the Screen1 element, and generated a Robustness diagram. This seems to work ok. Still not sure what the issue is with my original model though. I'll keep experimenting.

7

General Board / Generated robustness diagrams--no UI objects

« on: February 16, 2011, 10:12:23 am »

Hi all. I'm trying out some of the ICONIX stuff in EA. I've created a domain model and UI model. I create a use case containing context references to these domain/UI classes. When I generate a robustness diagram, it doesn't place any of my UI objects (screens) as Boundary objects on the diagram. The EA help states:

"Each UI element in a step becomes a Boundary element.  A Dependency relationship is created from this Boundary element to the UI element (this connector is not shown on the diagram). "

No Entity elements appear on the diagram either.

Further, if I drag a screen element onto the generated diagram it shows as a UI Screen representation and I can't change the stereotype (e.g. to make it a Boundary stereotype so it will display as a Boundary class).

What am I doing wrong? Thanks.

8

General Board / Re: invoke/extend/include in structured scenario

« on: February 07, 2011, 07:39:02 am »

What do you mean by "invoke"?
I only know include and extend.
Suppose
UCA --include--> UCB
UCA <--extend-- UCB
Notice the difference in direction of the relation. In both cases UCB contains behavior that may be executed during the execution of UCA.
The difference is that in case of an include UCA knows about UCB and decides when to execute it.
In case of Extent UCA only provide extension points (consider them hooks) which UCB can use to execute its own behavior, without the knowledge of UCA.

Geert

[edit]Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't asking what include/extend means. I'm still trying to understand the Structured Scenario editor and how I can make use of it. (viz my my previous post on it).

Try this: right-click a scenario step. A pop-up menu appears. Choose Link Step to UseCase. In the sub-menu, three more options appear: <<extend> UseCase/<<include>> UseCase/[Invokes: UseCase].

EA adds the appropriate relationship between the chosen use cases, extend/include/invokes respectively, as the help text states.

"Either include the actions of an existing Use Case element, extend an existing Use Case element, or invoke a Use Case as the action of the selected step. Selecting the appropriate sub-option displays the Select Use Case dialog, which you use to browse for and select the required Use Case element.

The appropriate includes, extends or invokes stereotyped connector is created between the current element and the selected Use Case.

For the include and extend actions, any text in the Action field is overwritten by the link to the Use Case. For the invoke action, the following link is added to the end of the Action text:

[Invokes: <Use Case Name>]"

However, this doesn't really tell me what the use-case   for this feature is.
[/edit]

9

General Board / invoke/extend/include in structured scenario

« on: February 04, 2011, 01:32:34 pm »

• What's the practical benefit of linking to use cases in this way?
• What's the difference between extend and invoke, specifically?

Thanks

10

Bugs and Issues / java class name change--synchronization

« on: February 21, 2011, 09:04:49 am »

Hi. Is it possible to change a Java class's name in the model and have it synched with the code (also so it changes the name of the source file ala Java convention)? Currently I get a new class generated in the existing source file as follows:

Pre synch file A.java:

Code: [Select]

public class A { public int a; }

Post synch file A.java (rename class A to B in model and forward engineer):

Code: [Select]

public class A { public int a; }

public class B { public int a; }

I would expect A.java to be removed and B.java in its place with the contents:

Code: [Select]

public class B { public int a; }

Thanks.

11

Bugs and Issues / Re: Structured Scenario "Joins" Not Repo

« on: February 03, 2011, 10:59:56 am »

I have

- [X] Scenario
    --- [ ] Exception
    --- [X] Structured Scenarios
           --- [X] Exception

I don't seem to have the type field. I'm using 8.0.864.

Also, I changed the text "Exception" to "Alternate" and removed Exception, as shown above. This is acceptable for now. Thanks for the reply.

Correction: It's not always right. I have a scenario where it inludes alternate and exception scenarios in the basic path, and labels them both "Alternate"   (I changed that text as indicated above). Does anyone have a work-around for this? Why is it sometimes including exceptions in the output, and not at other times? I'm going to check my model and see if there are any subtle differences in how I've defined them.

12

Bugs and Issues / Re: Structured Scenario "Joins" Not Reportable ???

« on: February 02, 2011, 01:55:02 pm »

I can't even get it to display Exception paths. How do I do this? It shows them at the end of the basic path but I'd like it in the Basic Path the way it does Alternate paths (although, for Alternate paths it displays "Exception: 10a. Blah blah" instead of "Alternate: 10a. Blah blah"!)

13

Bugs and Issues / Re: Use Case Scenario pre/post conditions

« on: February 03, 2011, 10:38:16 am »

It's true that scenarios are not defined in the UML. My interpretation is that the 'pre-condition' of an extension use case is the condition (constraint) on the extension, if present.

From section 16.3.3
"• condition : Constraint [0..1]
References the condition that must hold when the first extension point is reached for the extension to take place."

This seems to be modelled in EA by the Scenario's name, which is shown as the guard in an activity diagram. An extension use case isn't meant to exist on it's own, so I'd imagine it shouldn't have pre/post conditions. But, whatever works for you  

14

Bugs and Issues / Re: Use Case Scenario pre/post conditions

« on: February 02, 2011, 02:19:52 pm »

Go to your use case properties, choose Constraints tab, select Pre-condition or Post-condition from 'Type' drop-down. Type the pre/post condition details in the 'Constraint' edit box.

Edit: just read your post properly. Does UML allow that? It seems a bit of overkill.

15

Bugs and Issues / Re: Use Case RTF Issue

« on: February 02, 2011, 01:48:56 pm »

The use case scenario template formats it the way you've specified. However, I can't get it to display Exception paths in the basic path the way it does Alternate paths (although, it incorrectly displays "Exception:" instead of "Alternate:" for alternate scenarios.)