Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: BUG: Project Integrity Check Completion

« on: September 05, 2007, 09:14:23 am »

I've also noticed that clicking on Go after the process seems to 'hang' reruns the process and gets the completion bar further. After clicking go in 7 successions the completion bar is almost at the end of the dialog box.

2

Suggestions and Requests / Re: BUG: Project Integrity Check Completion

« on: September 05, 2007, 08:58:12 am »

I am having a similar experience and I am wondering if this is really a bug or if I should be waiting longer until some point when the process completes? Will the progress bar ever fill up (reach the end?) How can I tell if the P.i.C. is successfully completed?

3

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Tear off toolbars

« on: November 08, 2006, 08:05:50 am »

yup. it did.
I didnt realize that a checked choice meant that it was actually not the selected state :-)  Even after a year I still feel pretty new to the app regardless of how much of the docs I read.
I do appreciate the support offered here. It really helps.

4

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Tear off toolbars

« on: November 07, 2006, 03:31:57 pm »

Actually the exact thing happened to me.
How did you get the tear offs back into the active window?
I still cant seem to do that.
I am on 6.1
Thanks!

5

General Board / Re: Disappearing Use Case  (bug?)

« on: September 05, 2007, 07:24:34 am »

It would seem to be that the negative number is a problem because I can no longer see the use case in the project tree - I can only access it from search. That is a huge problem for me because I need to work with the use case and include it in other diagrams and reports.
Also this makes me very concerned because if it is possible for other elements to disappear due to database rolling over counters it would seem that the longer I use EA the more I am likely to have elements I can no longer access.

I also have a question:
What do you mean by "upsize to a dbms"?

Thank you.

6

General Board / Disappearing Use Case  (bug?)

« on: September 04, 2007, 03:29:51 pm »

Hi There
I searched the board and I cant find a trace of this issue so here it goes.

I am working on a project using EA and our EAP file contains over 800 external requirements, 400 use cases and any more entities and classes.

After not working on a package for over a month I returned to that package to find 1 use case (lets call it UseCase007) missing from the document tree.  I searched for UseCase007 via the search function and the search found the use case. However when I double click on the use case the app tells me that it cannot find it in the browser.

One of our programmers accessed the data programmatically an d found that the use case has a negative package ID.

My questions are:
How did it get a negative package ID?
How can we tell if more elements have the negative package ID?
What can cause the element to get a negative package ID assigned?
Is there a size limit to an EAP file? Have we hit it, and having hit it what kind of side-effects can we expect?

I have a lot more requirements and use cases to enter into the model but I am concerned about loosing hours of work.
Any help is appreciated.
Thank you!

7

General Board / Re: Version Control without problems??

« on: September 04, 2007, 09:02:10 am »

Could you comment on what type of issues you saw with Clear Case. We are looking to integrate our EA model with Clear Case and I am wondering what issues we would encounter and also what that integration buys us. We are particularly interest in versioning of standalone elements such as use cases and external requirements as well as various diagrams.
Thank you!

8

General Board / Re: Sharing model with version 6.5 and 7

« on: August 23, 2007, 07:34:53 am »

Thank you for the reply.

I have another question.
Can EA 6.5 and 7.0 be installed on the same machine?

I would like to test a dummy eap file with 7.0
and continue to work with our production eap files with 6.5

Is it possible to install 7.0 in a way that allows that or do I need absolutely have to install 7.0 over 6.5?

9

General Board / Re: Sharing model with version 6.5 and 7

« on: August 22, 2007, 01:23:25 pm »

Just to be clear.
If my current team is using EA 6.5 Corporate Edition and I alone upgrade to EA 7.0 and turn on the auditing feature, the rest of the team will still be able to view the EAP file and make modifications? Or is this move still considered risky?
We are trying to test 7.0 and then determine the role out strategy and compatibility information is extremely critical.
Thank you!

10

General Board / Re: Who uses EA for requirements management?

« on: June 18, 2007, 02:06:35 pm »

I will take a look - thank you for the suggestion.
Is v.7.0 in beta or is it the final build?
We just had 6.5 distributed at work

11

General Board / Re: Who uses EA for requirements management?

« on: June 18, 2007, 10:55:06 am »

This is a personal observation but I believe that what has changed is as important as what is.
Oftentimes on large teams there are decisions made that are, in  retrospect, poor,whether its because of lack of understanding of the problem, lack of information at the time of the decision or some other issue (such as office politix.) I think for development of requirements and use cases its nice/necessary to capture those decisions and changes. I cant express how many times I had a group of users ask " Why the h+ll did we decide to do it this way?" or "What was this before?" Also with large teams of developers and analysts its pretty nice to see who touched which element in the tree and the changes that they made.  I know this verges on change control but if EA is to be used as a primary source for requirements then I believe it does need change control to succeed in that task, especially at an enterprise level.

12

General Board / Re: Who uses EA for requirements management?

« on: June 15, 2007, 11:38:33 am »

I am working on several projects with hundreds of requirements and use cases and several analysts. By mandate we are using EA since its also used during other phases of the project. I find the issues of history, tracibility and ownership really difficult to deal with in EA. What I mean by those is as follows :
while gathering and analyzing requirements, requirements change (naturally) or grow in detail and I find it difficult to impossible to document the change which is necessary for our review process.
Also with requirements I always like to address the basics of Who-What-Why-Where-When-How in order to assure that there is an actor who is responsible for the requirement and is a stakeholder on the project. Presently I 'break' the requirement notes into 4 sections: Purpose, Specifier, Details and Analyst notes but I find it cumbersome to upkeep this pattern since its a pretty manual process. I am looking into custom tagging to solve some of these issues but I would have preferred another solution.  Also when our team is working on a project I find it difficult to coordinate analysis work in EA, again due to the issue asking whats new and where has it been entered.
Finally I find that reporting on whats in EA to the stakeholder - basically documentation - is rather difficult.
The best way to organize things in EA for Analysts and Business Stakeholders seems to differ than that for the Technical Team and I often find that balancing between using EA for design and coding and serving the business users difficult because you cant easily group the same information in different ways.
As I work more with EA and our team I will report on our progress and solution we may discover which would aid our tasks.

13

General Board / Re: Setting Attributes on multiple elements

« on: June 16, 2007, 08:28:49 am »

You bring up an interesting point...
How does one right an add-in for EA?

My only reservation about writing an add-in is that the next version will have the feature(s) I will want and will write.

It seems rather logical to me, having used the product for a little under two years, that one may want to do the same thing on a set of objects in the project - like let say add the same key word or change the language, version, or phase. Also one thing that I found really weird is that there was no way to multi-select objects in the tree and then create an RFT doc just for the selected objects. Oftentimes in my projects my documentation is for the current iteration which involves parts of many packages and creating a document for review is a difficult chore.

14

General Board / Re: Setting Attributes on multiple elements

« on: June 15, 2007, 06:04:24 pm »

Bummer...
This makes handling a lot of connected elements a lot harder
Sounds like I will be putting in a lot of overtime bringing our models up to date.

15

General Board / Setting Attributes on multiple elements

« on: June 15, 2007, 03:07:12 pm »

Hi Everyone
I am wondering if its possible to set attributes on multiple elements all in 1 operation. Here is the scenario:
I have the Project Browser organized as such:

[]Project Name
L Use Case View
 L Package 1
  L Use Case 1
   L External Requirement 1
   L External Requirement 2
   L External Requirement 3
  L Use Case 2
   L External Requirement 4
   L External Requirement 5
   L External Requirement 6
  L Use Case 3
   L External Requirement 7
   L External Requirement 8
   L External Requirement 9
 L Package 2
  L Use Case 4
   L External Requirement 10
   L External Requirement 11
   L External Requirement 12

I would like to set the Phase Attribute of Package 1, Use Cases 1,2 and Requirements 1-6 to 1.5

So far I cant find a faster way than to have the Project Browser and The Properties roll out open and hand editing that attribute one by one.

Is there a way to set attributes en mass?

Follow up question: is there a way to set custom tagged values en mass?

Thank you!