Messages

1

Bugs and Issues / RealSignalOutElement vs RealOutSignalElement

« on: April 17, 2021, 02:06:43 am »

Hello all,
Since I need to do resource, data rate, bandwidth calculations I resorted the simulation capabilities of EA.
Could have done those in Excel, but I try to follow are more MBSEesque Appraoch here.

So recently started to work with the OMG SysPhys Profile, because it has been added to EA 15.2 1554 in August 2020.
(Thanks Sparx for a move in the right direction)
After several updates I assumed the support to be in a mature state.

When following the Guidance in "Simulation with Precision" Tutorial from Sparx the Model Wizard is used to add some needed definitions.
You get 2 packages with value type and interface block definitions that are alos defined within the OMG SysPhys Profile spec.

And here comes the kicker:
Those names do not match.

The OMG naming scheme is "RealSignalOutElement" and the wizard gives me "RealOutSignalElement".

I can still performing those simulations because the Interface Block type names are not significant here.
(the applied stereotypes drive the code generation for OpenModelica)

I still consider it a bug.

2

Uml Process / Re: Difference Association with Aggregation set to "composite" vs Composition

« on: April 17, 2021, 01:46:32 am »

Thx for restoring my confidence 

3

Uml Process / Difference Association with Aggregation set to "composite" vs Composition

« on: April 16, 2021, 07:30:48 pm »

Hi people,
I need some clarification on the topic above, because I observe inconsistent behavior and need to know if it is my fault or a bug.

I work with SysML, but my question is also valid for UML.

What is the difference between:

Creating an Association and setting Aggregation to "composite" on one Ends (Showing up as Type "Association" in the connector properties) vs.
creating an Part Association (Showing up as Type "Aggregation" in the connector properties)

Besides the Target and Source being reversed (for whatever reason) there should be no difference between the two.
At least when consulting the UML 2.5.1 Spec.

But I see different behavior in what considered a part vs. an attribute in SysML BDD diagrams or SysML Par Diagrams.
So it looks like EA wants to see the type "Aggregation" in some cases, even so that is not am official UML metatype.

Either I am confused or something is really fishy here.

Any advice on that one?

4

Suggestions and Requests / Consider adding the free Add Ins from the Japanese EA Version for ROW

« on: February 24, 2021, 09:19:21 pm »

Hello,
if Google Translate does not fool me, then the Japanese EA version provides lots of very useful free Add Ins that are not available to the Rest of the World (ROW). e.g FTA Analysis, Extended Traceability Matrix, ...

Some Add Ins have an English Language Version already and could be very useful for the ROW.
I would even be ready to pay for some of those instead of rolling my own.

Currently they are inaccessible even having an active Maintenance Subscription.

Please think about it.  If you really want to push MBSE, then that would be a smart move 

5

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: Regular Expression Coloring Add-in (Helping people facing large-scale software )

« on: February 20, 2021, 01:20:56 am »

Hello Shinichiro Nakamura,
I am late to the party, but this really must be the best first post of all times :-)

I will investigate if I can make use of it (I spend a lot of time coloring diagrams and making them Stakeholder readable)

6

Uml Process / Re: How to design a PLC program (TwinCAT 3) with EA

« on: February 18, 2021, 03:52:24 am »

Hello,
it has been a long time since I have done PLC like development (porting a Soft PLC to an Embedded system), so my back then knowledge is clearly outdated.
I remember the PLC developers having a graphical development environment (With FB, structured Text, ...)

So there already is an already accepted graphical notation on the FB level of abstraction.
If you plan to generate Structured Text Code from a SysML Model than that is certainly possible, but I would advise against it.
You already have a graphical notation and a text syntax that complement each other and can converted into each other.

Therefore I believe SysML can only be of value for you, if you move 2 to 3 abstraction levels up when using SysML.
So maybe allocation of functions to HW nodes (and the functions are then realized by some FB on a PLC for example)

Or modelling the interplay of several of those HW nodes and their functions (using State Diagrams, Sequence Diagrams, ...)
Also indicating which requirements are realized by which HW or SW block can give a nice high level view (so nothing falls between the cracks)

So as it already has been said: It really depends what your goals are and on what abstraction level you want to use SysML

7

General Board / Re: Assigning colors to stereotypes for both blocks and connectors? SYSML

« on: January 30, 2021, 05:02:56 am »

Yes a diagram legend is one way to go (and a good one at that).
Using stereotypes to color elements is something supported also by legends. So there is a use case for that 
I believe it is all about the mind set at play why and when you do it:

Create a Stereotype to color elements? Hell no that feels wrong on so many levels.
(it is meant for element meta types, part of the type and not a diagram/ display concern, yada, yada, ...)

But, if you already have a Stereotype for typing reasons (e.g. this connector is <<electrical>> or this block is <<mechanical>>), then it really can make sense to color elements and connections based on the applied stereotype.

8

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Add "Relationship Matrix View" as a diagram default Mode of Diagrams

« on: January 20, 2021, 06:56:41 pm »

Done

9

Suggestions and Requests / Re: v15.2 – Tooltip for QuickLinker to show FQMN

« on: January 18, 2021, 07:28:28 pm »

+1

10

Suggestions and Requests / Add "Relationship Matrix View" as a diagram default Mode of Diagrams

« on: January 18, 2021, 07:27:47 pm »

It is possible to set the default diagram Views (Dialog Group Name is "Mode") within the diagram Property Dialog (Only in the Popup)
Currently (EA 15.2.1557) the following views can be selected:

"Always Open as Element List"
"Always Open as Gant*
"Allways Open as Specification"

The "Relation Matrix View" (only selectable via the Diagram header) is not among them.
My stakeholders like the "Relation Matrix View" much more than the Dependency Matrix (it is more graphical and presentable,
Unfortunately that view has to be selected again and again an cannot be made the default.

Sparx: Please consider adding the "Relationship Matrix View" as a Diagram Mode Option.

An while you are at it:
Please also make the column width and row height settings stick (make them persistent per diagram), so layout changes don't need to be made again and again as well.
 

11

Bugs and Issues / Re: Azure Icons print with black background

« on: December 24, 2020, 01:00:39 am »

Hi Geert,
thanks for the clarification.
That defuses one of my "frustration" / rant points 
(The second one about the Clipboard).

I am testing the latest Sparx EA Release (15.2.1556) right now and some bugs still get me enraged / heated up.
(e.g. SysML IBD diagrams and their layout problems. Or printing problems in general)

Or the fact that updating to a newer version still manages to kill the layout of existing diagrams
(despite being locked and visually frozen)

A happy Christmas to all Sparx Users and Employees

12

Bugs and Issues / Re: Azure Icons print with black background

« on: December 23, 2020, 07:43:19 pm »

 

I don't think this can be the final answer to this issue.

First:
The Azure Icons are a brand new Feature and are completely useless for document generation by now.
(Especially if you give the documentation to external Stakeholders. Looks very non professional)

Second:
Why clipboard format settings should be related to printing totally escapes my imagination

Third:
@Sparx You render those meta files. So why it should not be possible to render those on top of a diagram in a transparent fashion is a mystery to me.
Either you have some "very" legacy code rendering the diagrams or you use an external library that you should get rid of.

In either case this cannot be the final answer in the year 2020. Leave your legacy behind. It is already an uphill battle to establish proper modelling against PowerPoint and Visio. With BS like this it is a loosing game.