Messages

1

General Board / Re: Generating structured scenario from activity diagram with composite diagram

« on: February 09, 2016, 09:30:24 pm »

I have created scenarios from activity diagrams but cannot get your stated usage to work either. It does not work for activities with composite set to true even if you add the diagramType tag value to that activity. I have also tried auto generating an activity diagram and then recreating the scenario from it which works until you add a composite diagram to one of the activities.

I suggest deselecting composite, create the scenario and then re-add the composite to the activity after successful scenario generation.

Hope this helps/makes sense

Gary

2

General Board / Re: Including activity diagram in generated document

« on: January 14, 2016, 08:49:10 pm »

Alternatively in the Generate Document dialog, select the Exclude Filters tab and select Activity in the Exclude details for box. this will however exclude ALL activities.

Gary

3

General Board / Re: Testing Matrix

« on: November 23, 2015, 11:01:13 pm »

Listing all tests regardless of state is done by selecting Project-> QA Reports & Metrics. then select the package where the tests are. Select Test Type to be All and Status to be All as well.

For the first part of your question, it depends on what type of test you are talking about. For internal tests on a requirement use the Specification Manger view.
For external tests in testcases I connect the Testcase to the Requirement with a <<Verify>> connector. Then use the Relationship Matrix with the Testcase package and requirement package as source and target. The select the  Link Type to be Verify.

Gary

4

General Board / Re: Trace requirements to implementation code?

« on: November 16, 2015, 07:46:01 pm »

SysML uses requirements and testcase linkage mechanisms as well as a way to link elements to requirements to show implementation.
Link usecases to requirement they <<Refine>>.
Link testcases to requirements they <<Verify>>.
Link blocks/classes to requirements they <<Satisfy>>.
You can <<trace>> a testcase to the usecase scenario it covers to enable tracking that all usecases have a testcase.
Useful to you would be to link testcases to blocks/Classes they <<Test>>.
 For all of the above the testcases are external not internal. i.e. actual elements not tests on elements.
The relationship matrix is then your friend as you can show linkages by stereotype to check all requirements are covered.

If you do not use/have the SysML toolbox then create the above stereotypes and use.

Gary

5

General Board / Re: Generation structured scenario from diagram fa

« on: October 30, 2015, 02:41:14 am »

One more thing to try. Make sure one of the control flows leaving a decision does not have a guard. This one will get interpreted as the main flow. If all the control flows leaving a decision have guards it will error.

Gary

6

General Board / Re: Generation structured scenario from diagram fa

« on: October 28, 2015, 02:57:21 am »

Make sure the activity that the activity diagram sits under has a tagged value called diagramType with a value of ActivityGraph.
For decisions make sure they have a guard, as these get translated into the alternate flow titile. If they do not have a guard then you get  the error you are seeing.

Gary

7

General Board / Re: Object and Control - Flows

« on: October 28, 2015, 03:04:11 am »

It also depends on the "timing" of the inputs. If the object can arrive before the control then you would use both as 2 can only execute if both the object and control tokens have arrived.
Gary

8

General Board / Re: Save images for several diagrams

« on: August 28, 2015, 05:31:08 pm »

Drag the diagrams into a temporary package and then generate a diagrams only rtf on that package.

9

General Board / Re: EA User configuration

« on: August 28, 2015, 05:41:45 pm »

mmmmm Custard.

Custart like marmite is one of those things you either love or hate . no middle ground.
G.

10

General Board / Re: Use Case Details documentation template

« on: April 09, 2015, 05:16:39 pm »

Yes got this myself. I just created my own copy of this template, then deleted and re-inserted the fields which cures it.

Gary

11

General Board / Re: How can I show that an element has a note insi

« on: March 18, 2015, 11:15:52 pm »

You have three options:
1) Add a note to the diagram, link it to the element, right click on the link and select Link this Note to an element feature, select Element Note from the drop down. This will add a note next to only the elements you want.
2) As VKN descibed on an element by element basis.
3) Add a linked document and add the note to that, then you get a little red A in the bottom corner of the element.

Gary

12

General Board / Re: Block Definition Diagram - Aggregation

« on: March 11, 2015, 02:55:16 am »

You are doing nothing wrong. That is exactly what is supposed to happen when you use the black diamond( composition). The connector means that the child is part of the parent.

13

General Board / Re: Documenting Tips Needed - EA Models and Word D

« on: March 10, 2015, 09:49:33 pm »

In EA 10 just create a template with all the unchanging stuff in the begining.
In EA 11 create a cover page template.

14

General Board / Re: Block link / relationship between 2 objects

« on: February 11, 2015, 12:18:27 am »

Back to the beginning question about connectors.
I wrote an add-in to do exactly what you want to do. Mine stops modellers from using Realize between requirements.

Use Geerts tutorial (thanks Geert very useful) to create an add-in. The method you want to put your code in is "EA_OnPreNewConnector". The following is the code i wrote:

/*
            EA.EventProperties Info Contains the following EventProperty objects for the connector
            to be created:
            (0)Type: Astring value corresponding to Connector.Type
            (1)Subtype: Astring value corresponding to Connector.Subtype
            (2)Stereotype: Astring value corresponding to Connector.Stereotype
            (3)ClientID: Along value corresponding to Connector.ClientID
            (4)SupplierID: Along value corresponding to Connector.SupplierID
            (5)DiagramID: Along value corresponding to Connector.DiagramID
             */
            bool result = true;
            //create objects to hold the diagram,client and supplier
            EA.IDualDiagram diag = Repository.GetDiagramByID(Info.Get("DiagramID").Value);
            EA.Element client = Repository.GetElementByID(Info.Get("ClientID").Value);
            EA.Element supplier = Repository.GetElementByID(Info.Get("SupplierID").Value);
            
            
                         /*this rule checks relisation is only used between a class and an interface
                         *or between interfaces on a block or class diagram*/
                        if (Info.Get(0).Value == "Realisation" || Info.Get(0).Value == "Realization")
                        {

                            
                            // Check that connection is only between a block/class and an interface or interface to interface
                            if ("Logical" == diag.Type && ("Class" == client.Type || "Interface" == client.Type) && "Interface" == supplier.Type)
                            {
                                                              
                                result = true;
                            }
                            else
                            {
                                MessageBox.Show("Connecor only valid between a block/class and an interface \n or interface to interface", "Invalid Connector Usage",
                                                MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Exclamation);
                                result = false;
                            }
                        }

Hope this helps

Gary

15

General Board / Re: MBSE Success Stories

« on: February 02, 2015, 08:14:19 pm »

Patrick
I have two parts to my job:
1) doing MBSE using SysML
2) making presentaions as to why MBSE is a good idea. What I call winning hearts and minds.
 
The second one is by and far the harder. Everyone wants proof before they will adopt it. Trouble is there are very few documented cases of success stories. Not because there are not any but mainly because people do not gather metrics whilst doing MBSE. Other reasons are  because they are performed by space/military companies and they do not publish what they do. Also success is sometimes because doing MBSE you avoid unplanned spending, it is hard to tell project managers that you will be preventing them spending money on problems that they were not going to spend on because you have avoided them.
System engineers are easier because they are doing the same steps as before but in model based way, with the bonus of less documentation.

The best way I found was costing how much engineering effort it takes to create, manage, track and release a document and then say you will saving that, especially if information is spread across mutiple documents. One change and they all have to updated. One change in a model and done.

Gary