Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Diagram resize in RTF documentation

« on: October 05, 2007, 12:18:40 am »

It appears to me that they are scaled to the page width. If you have a diagram that is tall but longer than the paper aspect ratio (A4 in my case), then the diagram flows of the bottom of the page.

I have had to spend time 'fattening; diagrams to stop this.

Scale to fit should mean just that, and both height and width should be accounted for.

2

General Board / Re: Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 17, 2013, 11:04:38 pm »

Thanks Dermot, from your suggestion my colleague (who was more willing than I to get to grips with SQL) came up with:

Code: [Select]

SELECT t_object.ea_guid AS CLASSGUID, t_object.Object_Type AS CLASSTYPE, t_object.Name AS ElementName, t_package.Name AS PackageName, t_package.Package_ID, t_object.Object_ID
FROM t_package INNER JOIN t_object ON t_package.Package_ID = t_object.Package_ID
Where
t_object.Object_ID not in (Select  t_connector.End_Object_ID FROM t_connector  where  t_connector.connector_Type = "Realisation") and
t_object.Object_Type = "Requirement" ;
Which checks for realisation is one direction only ("Requirement is realised by..." relationship.

This now works better than the model validation for our purposes, since it finds occurrences of association rather than realisation, which the validation does not.  In most cases realisation is what I want, and an association is normally an incorrect connector type in this context.

Thanks to all how contributed to finding a solution.

3

General Board / Re: Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 17, 2013, 04:42:00 am »

Currently I am getting a large number of reports from validation than from the search, and have not yet determined why.

The SQL search is reporting all Requirements with no link of any kind rather than specifically with no "Realization" link.  

So any thing with a note attached, or as a composition part of some other requirement are not reported - that covers a fairly large number of cases.

The SQL remains mostly voodoo to me!

4

General Board / Re: Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 10, 2013, 09:40:25 pm »

Validation is a good solution - to cover your initial query on the SQL search - try this:

That works really well and is exactly what I was after, and is sortable within EA and as you say more navigable than the validation report.  It is much faster too.

Currently I am getting a large number of reports from validation that from the search, and have not yet determined why.  My plan is to resolve all the issues from the search (i.e. realise every requirement reported) then run the validation to see what the extra hits are.

Thanks.

5

General Board / Re: Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 10, 2013, 03:10:10 am »

Select [highlight]Project -> Model Validation -> Validate Selected[/highlight] from the Main Menu

Genius!    That looks like just what I need.

Even better, you can double-click on an entry on the list and it takes you straight to the diagram.

Thanks.

6

General Board / Re: Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 10, 2013, 02:35:59 am »

You can probably achieve that with a query. You need to join t_object.object_id with t.connector.start_object_id resp. end_object_id and check for a count of 0.

Sounds good, but I am no SQL wizard either!  It's a lot to ask to be spoon fed a solution I know;  I perhaps naively thought it would be simple and someone would give me the magic runes.  

In the meantime, I have discovered a solution that does not require a learning curve or development resource:  The information I need can be generated as a relationship matrix, but with thousands of requirements and hundreds of model elements that is unwieldy, but exporting it to Excel allows me to filter it to give just the information I need.  Not very slick, but usable.

7

General Board / Re: Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 10, 2013, 12:53:05 am »

i.e. what tools or libraries do I need, what language can I use etc.

To answer my own question on that I guess http://www.sparxsystems.com/resources/developers/autint.html is a good starting point?

8

General Board / Re: Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 10, 2013, 12:49:40 am »

Yes it is possible to do by writing an add-in.

OK, that is perhaps not as simple as I would have liked.  I was hoping for a canned SQL query to drop into the search builder.

I am an embedded systems developer, and would be a bit out of my comfort zone with add-in development for EA - I would not know where to start, so doing that is likely to take longer that I have at this time.

If I knew what I was doing, how long would it take do you think?  Do you have any pointers regarding where I would start - i.e. what tools or libraries do I need, what language can I use etc.

9

General Board / Report all requirements without realization

« on: December 09, 2013, 10:00:06 pm »

I have a model with a large number of "Requirements" elements that are associated with modelling elements by "Realization" links.

I wish to generate a model search report for all requirements elements that have zero realization links.

Is this possible? And if so, how do I do it?

Thanks if you can help.

10

General Board / Bulk import of glossary terms

« on: November 09, 2009, 11:08:31 pm »

I already have a number of documents containing domain-specific glossary terms. I would like a way of importing these quickly into EA.  It is not possible as far as I have determined to simply paste them into the Glossary table, or import them as CSV, because they are not package elements.  Export and import of the glossary appears to be only through XML reference data, which is only useful for data originating from EA.

Is there a way to achieve this rather than laboriously filling in individual entry dialogs?

Thanks
Clifford

11

General Board / Re: EA 7.0 Communication diagram messages

« on: July 25, 2007, 11:17:05 pm »

Thanks KP. I avoided involvement in the Beta test because I was on an active project. I kind of wish I had seeing as this arose on the first diagram I opened!

I tried to reproduce the error on a smaller model for submission and cannot make it occur. Must be something about this particular model, so I have submitted the model itself.

12

General Board / Re: EA 7.0 Communication diagram messages

« on: July 25, 2007, 09:29:24 am »

You can set this to <none> while you wait for one you like.

Ha! I wish I had not mentioned it, it may distract from my main point. I am aware that you can change it, my objection was that it is the default. And the "one I like" is in fact <none>. If I deploy this tool to my entire team, I'll have to get them all to individually switch that nonsense off. The decoration is not UML, it is just wallpaper. Perhaps it is because I am an embedded systems developer that such eye-candy does not appeal, but I think it just looks unprofessional - this is software engineering not graphic design.


Clifford

13

General Board / EA 7.0 Communication diagram messages

« on: July 25, 2007, 08:04:58 am »

I installed EA 7.0 Build 814 and opened an existing model from EA 6.5. On opening an existing Communication diagram all the message labels are repeated, so that what was previously "shutdown()" is now "shutdown()shutdown()".

It appears that the cause is that the "Show Inherited Methods" check-box is selected, and the message is an operation of the target object's classifier.

I can think of no good reason for this behaviour - perhaps someone can enlighten me - but more importantly, is there an easy way to switch the "Show Inherited Methods" check-box off for all message.

While I am on first impressions, the gradient fill affect that appears to have been applied by default is nasty and pointless.

14

General Board / Re: Object representation inconsistent

« on: July 13, 2007, 03:30:09 am »

Thanks for the reply.

15

General Board / Object representation inconsistent

« on: July 12, 2007, 07:57:10 am »

In EA, on an object diagram, the <object name>:<classifier> label is underlined, whereas on the communication diagram they are not. Is this correct, and if so, what is the purpose of the distinction?

I note that the user manual shows objects on communication diagrams with the underline!

I also found that thomaskilian raised a similar issue, albeit several years ago, but the conclusion seemed to be that the underline should be there.

Should it not also be there for objects on sequence diagrams (in fact objects anywhere)?

Am I just missing some preference selection possibly?

Clifford