Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - potterm

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Many thanks Aaron, that explains it.  I thought I was going mad (and even went through a cycle of uninstalling and re-installing the Add-In, to no avail).  Unfortunately my support expired in December, so I'm unable to take you up on your offer, but I'll probably renew at some point this year - just waiting to see what's coming up in the next point release of EA.


The EA User Guide says that when importing requirements from a DOORS module it is possible to import any attachments that may exist on any of the objects - specifically through the following import dialog:


However when I attempt to import I don't see this dialog (a different one is shown) and there seems to be no option elsewhere to ask for attachments to be imported.  Has anyone faced similar issues, and if so how did you overcome them?

I'm using version 2.2 of the MDG Link for DOORS (which is the latest I believe) and EA build 1309 (Ultimate edition).


That did it  :)

Thanks very much qwerty!

In our design model we have sequence diagrams showing components receiving sequence messages.  The components do not have operations themselves, but implement interfaces defined within our model.  I want to write an EA query which returns the interfaces and the operations on those interfaces that are invoked by each sequence message on each sequence diagram.  However I don't know which table/attribute in the EA internal data model holds this information.

For example:

ComponentA implements Interface1 which specifies Op1, Op2 and Op3.  I have a sequence diagram which includes a message from another component invoking Op2 on ComponentA.  From my query I can see that the t_connector table contains an entry for this sequence with the name "Op2()", but I can't see how to navigate from there to find Interface1 and Op1 (i.e. which table/attribute holds the information).

I would expect it to be in t_connector, but nothing in that table seems to record the classifier and operation that is the target of the sequence message.  I know that EA holds this information because when I double click on the message in the diagram and select the message pull-down I can see the fully qualified name selected in the list (i.e. "Interface1::Op2").

Does anyone know?


General Board / Re: How to enable Enable Security
« on: October 25, 2016, 06:39:57 am »
Have you checked to make sure your model file (assuming you're using an EAP repository) isn't read-only?  We had a similar issue, wherein we wanted to test User Security on a copy of our model which is normally checked into SVN (the whole EAP file), so the working copy was read-only and this caused the enable security option (all options on that menu in fact) to be grayed out.

Just a thought....


Suggestions and Requests / GANTT View Feature Requests
« on: October 20, 2016, 04:59:10 pm »
I have a few requests on the Gantt view, which looks to be very powerful.

1) Every time you open a package in Gantt view it is collapsed.  If this is your entire "plan" then you have to click all of the sub-packages and other elements to see the resources allocated, progress etc.  I can understand why it might be better to start off with it collapsed, but can we have an "Expand Branch" like command on the context menu please, so that you can expand from a selected level in the Gantt view all the way down through its children?

2) Column selection - I often don't want to see the status of items in the Gantt view so I'd like to hide this column to recover some screen real-estate, but there appears to be no way to do it.

3) Middle-mouse click and drag to move the view around, like on all other diagrams.  At the moment you have to grab the scroll bars or use your mouse's scroll wheel (but will only operate one of the scroll bars of course).

Many thanks.

Has my vote - I've faced the same issue on many occasions. 

Whilst waiting for Sparx to fix this you could work around it by developing a UML Profile with a custom stereotype which has a shape script attached.  The shape script tells EA how you wish to have the symbol drawn.  You then apply the stereotype to any triggers or signals that you want to be left facing.  It would need a bit of work to set-up, but once you've done so you'll have a long term solution until Sparx fix it for good.

See the online help here:

EDIT: In fact I think you can achieve the same by defining a new stereotype in your model and adding the shape script to that (through Configure>UML Types>Stereotypes in the EA13 ribbon interface).  Then you'd not need the UML profile.  The advantage of the profile is that you can easily import the stereotype and shape script into other models.  Not sure if you can export/import if you add the stereotype directly to the model.

I'm not sure whether this is a feature request or a bug (probably half-way between - which is why I've raised it here), but one missing feature of EA's sequence diagram modelling seems to be how it exposes the operations of an object being modelled on the diagram.

For example, if I send a message from component A to component B, and I've defined a bunch of private and public operations for component B, shouldn't EA only show me the public operations on the message dialog pull-down?  In the latest build it doesn't - it shows both public and private operations which seems wrong (and also makes the job harder if you're using private operations to model internal behaviour/functionality).

In the case of a self-message, I can see that this behaviour is reasonable, but IMO it isn't for messages that arrive from other objects on the sequence diagram because you wouldn't expect them to have visibility of the object's private methods.

Is there any chance of Sparx fixing this in a future release? (having an option to enable/disable this behaviour would be ideal).


Suggestions and Requests / Requirements/responsibilities inheritance
« on: February 17, 2005, 06:54:32 am »
It would be extremely useful if EA supported the ability to inherit or copy/transfer requirement traces from parent to child elements in a composite component hierarchy, therefore allowing requirements to be allocated to high level components, and then transferred or copied to lower level components as the system decomposition proceeds.

This is probably best explained with a (simplified) example of what I'd like to acheive...

(1) Let's say the system requirements are already specified for the system (our role is not requirements elaboration - that's already been done to some extent by the client).

(2) A high level system decomposition exists, possibly created by us, but possibly by the client (as part of the presentation of system requirements)

(3) The requirements are imported into EA (e.g. using automation) as external requirement elements and the high level decomposition is modelled (say using a component model).

(4) As a first pass the requirements are traced (using Realisation links) to the top level components.  This results in the applicable requirements appearing as external requirements  in the properties of each top level component (in the "Require" tab).  So far so good.  In my imaginary system, each component is then assigned to a designer who must then decompose/elaborite it further and assign the requirements to lower level components as necessary, therefore providing our first full trace to the system decomposition.

(5) Designer "A" does this for component 1, creating sub-components 1a, 1b, 1c etc.  He then wants to replicate selected requirement traces for component 1 to it's sub-components, dependant of course on each component's responsibilities in the new system.  

For example, the requirement might be "The system shall displayed all logged events" which is traced at the top level to the "Monitoring & Control Subsystem".  In elaborating the M&C Subsystem, the designer has defined an "Event Log Display" which naturally would realise this requirement, so he transfers that trace to the lower level Event Log Display component.  In fact, ideally the trace should be replicated, because the subsystem above still has overall responsibility for meeting this requirement (and it may be useful to retain the subsystem level trace).

So it would be useful if EA supported full or selective inheritance (copy) of traces of requirements from a higher level component to it's sub-components.  I'm thinking of something perhaps triggered from the properities window of each child component (either a new dialog, or the ability to "show parent requirements" in the Require tab and functions to selectively import them).

Knowing EA there's no doubt some way to do this already, but I haven't found it yet.


Suggestions and Requests / Configuration Control Improvements
« on: February 19, 2004, 05:39:28 am »
Recently I've been evaluating the configuration control facilities of EA, using the trial version of the PushOK CVS bridge.  It all seems to work OK, but there are issues when it comes to configuration controlling very large models.

Every time you want to configure a package for inclusion in configuration control, you must supply an XML filename for it (after ticking the "Version Control" checkbox in the Package Control Options dialog).  Not an issue for one or two packages, but this becomes a bind if converting a large model (with many packages) for inclusion in configuration control.  To be really useful in this context, I want to be able to configuration control individual packages, not just the top level ones.

The default is for all XML files entered into config control to be stored in the same place (folder if you will) within the CC repository.  This becomes a problem if you want to configuration control individual packages across various areas of a large model.  For example, if I want to put a package "System Alerts" into CC, the obvious filename to assign would be "SystemAlerts.xml".  However, the "System Alerts" package may appear in various different places throughout the model (requirements model, analysis model, design model etc), and in each case is a valid package that you may want to individually control in the CC repository.  If I use the same naming convention for these other cases, I will get name clashes when I enter them into config control.

However, I've noticed that in the Package Control Options dialog you can assign a relative path to the XML filename.  So for example, in my requirements model I could use "Requirements\SystemAlerts.xml" for the system alerts package in the requirements area of the model, and "Design\SystemAlerts.xml" for the design package.  This results in EA/PushOK placing the XML files into the two sub-directories you've specified within CVS (you don't need to create them beforehand - it seems to happen automatically), thus avoiding name clashes.

So, my suggested improvements are that:
  • EA should automatically assign an XML filename based on the package name when the "Version Control" check-box is ticked in the Package Control Options dialog.
  • Optionally, EA should assign a relative path before the XML filename that reflects the package's position within the package hierarchy in the model. So if the package hierarchy is "MyModel\Requirements\System Alerts", then the XML filename assigned by default would be "MyModel\Requirements\SystemAlerts.xml".
This be would be a big usability improvement for me, and certainly helps when dealing with large models.  Ideally it should be possible to switch on/off both features in the Options dialog.


Suggestions and Requests / Re: Include Referenced Files in Reports
« on: June 02, 2003, 02:59:03 pm »

Very much agree - this would be a great feature.  The format we decided to use for our Use Cases don't work within EA because they are tabular, so we've defined them in external Word docs, one per use case, and attached those as files to each EA Use Case.

When it comes to generating documentation (in HTML), we have a rather contrived scheme to get it all to link up...

(1) Save all the Use Case Word docs as HTML (using a VBA script in Word)
(2) Generate the HTML documentation from within EA
(3) Run another program to post-process the EA generated HTML so that each file link references the HTML version of the Use Case as a local link.

The third step is rather more complicated because the link needs to be local (rather than absolute), otherwise they break when you move the HTML to another location (e.g. such as when you burn it to CD to give to a client).  

Our script therefore copies the HTML Use Case file into the same directory as the (EA generated) HTML file that references it, and updates the link appropriately.  This way, you can move the documentation anywhere without the links breaking.

Anyway, rather contrived as I said, but it works for us for the time being.  But it would be great if EA could do some of this automatically when generating the report.

I noticed another related post on the main board which suggests implementing the same mechanism as for code generation (I.e. local paths).  Perhaps this could be the answer.


General Board / Does EA support BPEL Variables?
« on: September 19, 2010, 03:25:07 am »
I'm considering using BPMN and BPEL to model the business processes for a upcoming project (with a view to using the BPEL generation features of EA), but couldn't find any way in EA's implementation to process variables (e.g. per the example at the end of this page from the Apache ODE documentation:

I've been able to attach properties to tasks within a process, but then found no way to assign or transfer them.  For example, when creating BPMN assignments the properties dialog only allows selection of web service messages as a valid source/destination and there is no "variable" assignment type, so it appears as if this part of the BPEL spec is not supported by EA.  Can anyone confirm?

Thanks in advance for any/all replies.


General Board / Re: List Numbering in Virtual Documents
« on: December 23, 2009, 07:43:14 pm »
It seems that the people at Sparx still don't understand that the end result of my work as Information Analist has to be perfect. If it looks sloppy, the customers will think the content is sloppy
I agree totally with this.

I have been having a good run with numbering (once I learnt not to put Document Artifacts in my master documents), but oddly yesterday I created a new document, with two model documents, each with a well used (proven) document template, and the heading 1 numbering resets itself between model documents.
I can't see the rhyme or reason for this. Sparx have got to fix this so it "just worx". Please

Agreed.  We've been trying to get list numbering working in Linked Documents attached to use cases.  In each linked document individually the numbering was perfect but as soon as you compile them all into a single RTF report all hell breaks loose, with some documents continuing where others left off, others resetting to 1 (which was what we wanted).

I raised a bug report with Sparx and they were very helpful, but the steps needed to get the report to do "the right thing" were so complex that we just gave up and now don't use list numbering at all - we just create numbered lists manually.

I know list styles are notoriously tricky (MS Word's handling isn't perfect by any means) but this issue really needs to be sorted out.


General Board / Re: Seach Model by GUID?
« on: March 13, 2009, 05:14:47 am »
No I just saw it mentioned in the list of changes.

General Board / Re: Seach Model by GUID?
« on: March 12, 2009, 11:48:13 pm »
Yes a custom search works, but only with v6.5.  I found that in v7.0/7.1 the custom search feature truncates the search term to a certain length which means that you can't enter an entire GUID.  I raised a bug report (which Sparx initially said was a feature request!), but I think they've addressed this in the EA7.5 beta anyway.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6