Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: More flexibel report generator

« on: December 02, 2007, 05:36:49 pm »

Hi Kobus,

This sounds like an awesome reporting extension that you created.  Are you able to share this with the user community?  Not sure if EA has incorporated such requirements into the main product yet.

Cheers
Nara

2

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Finer control over model content in RTF docume

« on: July 05, 2007, 02:13:08 pm »

Oh and BTW here are the online links to the documentation options I suggested:

Virtual documents:
http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/EAUserGuide/virtualdocuments.htm

Master Documents:
http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/EAUserGuide/usingmsword.htm

And one other thing, the Legacy RTF generator also allows you to do some filter options in the generation and you may want to explore this a bit.

You could for instance perform an update of time stamps on the elements you want to exclude and then generate documentation for objects modified before that date.

http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/EAUserGuide/applyafilter.htm

3

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Finer control over model content in RTF docume

« on: July 05, 2007, 02:07:01 pm »

Hi,

I agree that having the ability to filter out elements or connections by type would be a great improvement in the documentation ability of EA.

While this feature is currently not available, there is a possible work around to achieve what you want by using a Word Master document or Virtual Documents.  

Have you considered splitting up your Use Case model package into Subpackages and generating the documentation at the lower level?  You can then include only the induvidual packages that you require into a Word master document or your virtual document and hopefully get finer control on your generated documentation.

Let me know if this works for you.  Needless to say, if the feature you requested was there then such workarounds would not be required.

4

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Suggestion: Linking Issues to Connections

« on: November 09, 2006, 06:59:20 pm »

Thanks! Didn't realise that.  

Do you also happend to know of a way to identify hidden notes that are not displayed on diagrams.

(i.e.) I insert a note to an element and then delete it from a diagram.  Is there then a way to identify all the hidden notes using an advanced  search or some such option.

5

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Suggestion: Linking Issues to Connections

« on: November 07, 2006, 05:00:10 pm »

Interestingly you can use the note as a placeholder and attached the defect to the note itself.  

However one of the downsides of using notes is that they are not visible in the Project browser and if hidden in the diagram there is no way you that I know where you can determine the existence of a note.

6

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Suggestion: Linking Issues to Connections

« on: November 07, 2006, 02:31:42 pm »

Have you considered attaching a Note to the communication link?  

This is possible and your model can visually depict that there is a problem with the specified connection.  Once the problem is resolved you can delete the note.

Right-click on the communication path and select "Attach Note or Contraint".

Hope this helps.

7

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Another Relationship matrix request

« on: November 07, 2006, 12:21:30 pm »

I agree.  This way people like me who use the relationship matrix to sometimes add traceability between a requirement and Use case are still able to do so and it also meets the need of those who want to see the filtered view.

Sure if someone puts this up as a request, you will see this introduced in EA within the next few updates.  They have always been quick to add such features.

8

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Another Relationship matrix request

« on: November 06, 2006, 07:33:36 pm »

If the relationship matrix does not show elements without the specified relationship, then you may not be able to establish new relationships using the matrix.  This is a useful feature, so unless I missed something, you are effectively voting to take out some functionality.

9

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Highlight foreign object default value

« on: April 26, 2006, 09:20:43 pm »

Ash,

I have been using EA in earnest for close to 1.5 years now, but was not aware of this feature to date due to the way the help file documents it.  It talks only about elements in the documentation and hence I assumed it does not apply to diagrams.

It may be worth considering rewording the help file to indicate that the default settings will be applied on both diagrams & elements.  Could save a lot of queries on the forum.


Of course it would be ideal if this was set up once per project via Tools > Options.  A number of tools work this way and EA can provide further funtionality to overide the default settings when specifically set for diagram types.  This will be useful in having all diagrams "scale ot 1 page' for instance.

10

General Board / Re: Requisite Pro intergration/import

« on: February 07, 2007, 02:26:23 pm »

Ralph,

It appears you want to maintain your requirements in ReqPro and the rest of your modelling in EA - Kind of on the lines of the ReqPro - Rose model.  

I assumed you wanted a one time import into EA like I did a while back and so my suggestion will not work for your needs.  Like you pointed out, too much maintenance.

Have you considered migrating the requirements to RaQuest (the requirements tool for EA) as EA & RaQuest work off the same model file (single repository)?

Cheers
Nara

11

General Board / Re: Requisite Pro intergration/import

« on: February 06, 2007, 02:03:37 am »

I'm seeking for a IBM Rational RequisitePro (RP) connector too.
--

Ralph,

Have you tried the "CVS Export/Import" option to import RequisitePro requirements to EA.  Might need some experimentation but I suspect you can get much of the main requirements into EA using this approach.

ReqPro allows you to export a list as a CSV file and also allows you to create custom list views.  I remember using this feature way back to import some requirements into EA using RAQuest (see earlier post in this thread).

To understand what the format should be, create a set of dummy requirements in a EA package and then export them using a newly defined export template.  Open in Excel and study the format and then use this to create the ReqPro List view.  Now when you export your ReqPro requirements from the view as CSV you should be able to import into a package in EA.

A bit manual at the moment but one way to address this issue.  If you managed to create suitable CSV templates it might be good to post it on this site for other to use.  

Unfortunately I do not have access to ReqPro, else might have done this in my spare time.

Good luck and post back your experience in case you try this out.

Cheers
Nara

12

General Board / Re: Requisite Pro intergration/import

« on: May 10, 2006, 02:59:39 pm »

Actually there is a way.  A year or so ago I migrated the requirements for a large product development effort from ReqPro to EA.  I had over 300 main requirements with subrequirements.  But you need the RaQuest tool for it, far as I am aware.

You can do this by creating a view in RaRuest  with all the requirements and all the attributes displayed, then export it to a CSV file.

Next you need to open RaQuest and define an import format and then use it to import the requirements.

ONE CAUTION:  Make sure you back up your DB before this operation.  Since there will be a lot of trial and error in the imports.

In my experience I had to do a fair bit of data massaging in Excel before I got it to the state where the import was smooth.  I beleive since then the Import feature in RaQuest has been enhanced a bit so you might find it simpler.

13

General Board / Re: Cross references in rtf documentation

« on: May 06, 2007, 12:33:34 pm »

Hi there!  What exactly do you want to do?  I did not understand what you meant by "(Model Element > Right Click > See Also...)".  

Where are you doing this?  In the RTF editor or EA?  If EA, are you doing it from the diagram or from the project browser?  

Will try and help if you can provide a few more details of what you want to achieve in your documentation.

Cheers
Nara

14

General Board / Re: Opening multiple models at the same time

« on: November 07, 2006, 12:42:06 pm »

One drawback I see is that I cannot reuse diagrams created in previous projects.
I understand I can create a Base model and use that to create a new project, but if I have more than base model, I don't see any way I can reuse diagrams and views created earlier.
This severly hinders reuse. Is there any way to get around this?

Have you tried using the Export/Import option?  

Using this you can export a package from a base model as an XML file.  You can then import it into another model.  

When you do the export ensure you keep the "Enable Full EA Roundtrip" option checked as this ensures that models GUIDs are maintained.  GUIDs is EA way of assigning unique identifiers to each model element.

This way you can make sure that changes to the Base model can be propogated to the edpendant models and vice-versa.  

However bear in mind that there could be a potential for overwriting links and relationships so use with caution.  I suggest you try this out on a test model and make changes in both base and new test models and understand the behaviur before you use this on a production system.

Also check up following topics on the help file:

Model Sharing & Team Development
http://sparxsystems.com.au/EAUserGuide/teamdevelopment.htm

Controlled Packages
http://sparxsystems.com.au/EAUserGuide/controlledpackages2.htm

Hope this helps.

15

General Board / Re: EA use for a large Corporate Archietcture proj

« on: November 09, 2006, 06:54:55 pm »

So you are using NO version control? With that many users and objects I would have assumed that you would have experienced at least some significant problems by now?

We have experienced no problems to date and are comfortable with this approach so far because of 2 reasons:

1) Users are clear on which package they are working on and there is never a case when 2 people are working on the same element at the same time.  We manage this by deciding on package structure up front and having a designated sub-team member responsible for each package. for e.g. Lead BA for Use Case model, Technical lead for Component model etc.  Lead BA is requested when new sub-packages are required and BAs are assigned to work on groups of work within a package which is based on logically related stuff.

2) We keep frequent snapshots of our model as XMI Exports named by date, so we can always compare with current model status and highlight the differences.

Our SQL database, on which this model sits is backed up daily.  So that gives us an added level of security, that should the DB go down, we are able to get it restored to a suitable state.

Like I mentioned, we initially turned on the version control but soon found it annoying and requiring constant management and hence decided to adopt the current approach.

My suggestion, try both and see which works for you.  But if you are nervous start with the version control and get rid of it once you are familiar with the product and decide on the ideal working style for your team.

HTH.