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 - Robert Sheridan

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
Uml Process / Re: Best Practice Contradicting group in logical m
« on: April 03, 2012, 10:01:39 pm »
Informally you could use aliases or use tags (create a stereotype or add them adhoc) with a lookup to a set of elements that represent those broader terms.  I have used the latter to associate changes with components that represent different parts of the system so that I can show which components a change will effect, you could have a element for each of your broader terms and link it in the same way to your classes.  The tag approach has the advantage of being structured and allowing you to make multiple links of terms.

Uml Process / Re: Modelling migrating multiple legacy data sourc
« on: March 16, 2012, 02:19:48 am »
Thanks Geert.  We are looking at using the behaviour and code attributes of an operation to document transformations (typically mapping lookup values which are different in the various systems) so that will work well as we can link from a specific element to a specific operation in the class doing the data transformations.  

For information:  We are looking at having a class for each attribute in the target system which will need a data transformation and then an operation within the class for each source (legacy) system.

Uml Process / Modelling migrating multiple legacy data sources
« on: March 15, 2012, 09:16:32 pm »
I have had a search here and in the community site and have not found anything on this.

We need to specifiy the migration of legacy data from various sources to a new consolidated data structure and would like to do this in EA rather than a spreadsheet.

My idea is that once we have loaded the physical schemas for the legacy and new databases we use intermediary class operations to document the transformations needed to convert a legacy attribute to the new attribute.  Does anyone have any suggestions for alternative ways of doing this?


Uml Process / Re: Best way to link requirements to each other
« on: March 13, 2012, 12:34:23 am »
We tend to reserve the realization link to show that the requirement has been incorporated into a design element such as a use case.  

I use connectors between requirements only when there is some form of dependency between requirements in different parts of the hierarchy, my reasoning is that I have often inherited complex requirements from contracts which have unrelated elements. Decomposing the requirements is difficult and it is easy to forget to delete connectors which no longer apply as the parts of the requirement are distinquished and moved into different bits of the hierarchy.  The original structure can either be retained by using a tag value for the original id or by keeping the originals in a separate node and linking the decomposed parts of each back to it.

Uml Process / Re: Skipping steps in a use case alternate flow
« on: March 01, 2012, 12:08:09 am »
I have been on projects where all the steps from the Normal were replicated and in my view it creates 2 challenges:
1. It makes the use case less concise to read (though also less ambiguous) and I have found that large docs => poorer reviews
2. If the main flow changes you have to replicate the changes to all the other flows (I know, I am basically lazy)

Uml Process / Re: Skipping steps in a use case alternate flow
« on: February 23, 2012, 03:06:28 am »
Thanks, before I started using stuctured scenarios I wrote alternates with 'omit steps x and y' and was wondering how to do it in structured scenarios.  It wont generate a activity diagram automatically but that is a small price to pay.

As an alternative to scripts: I have created a library of empty virtual docs, the users then use cut and paste to create a copy which they then populate with the package links by dragging and dropping on to the diagram.

It does work within the package section, I had inadvertently put the SQL in the section on the first tab rather than custom queries.  Aaaaargh

Hi all,
I have written some SQL to extract user security information using Project Search.  I would like to reuse it in a report to provide it in a standard format.
I created a template fragment, added the SQL to it and added the custom fields in to the custom section.  I then created a report template and added the template in to the package section as there was no option to add it in to the custome section.  
When I ran the report there was not output.  Have I missed something or is this not supported (because the SQL does not refer to a package or element).

I suspect you will have to do that via the Automation Interface from a macro enable spread sheet.

I am transferring data from a non EA repository into EA.  The data includes connectors.  I can create connectors Ok but if the target and source are the same the subsequent update of the connector with additional values fails.  Has anyone else come across this? code below.

                   With theRelConn
                        .alias = theConnID 'From the source repository
                        .Notes = ActiveCell.Offset(0, 2).Value
                        .ClientEnd.Role = ActiveCell.Offset(0, 7).Value
                        .ClientEnd.Cardinality = Chr(ActiveCell.Offset(0, 9).Value)
                        .SupplierEnd.Role = ActiveCell.Offset(0, 8).Value
                        .SupplierEnd.Cardinality = ActiveCell.Offset(0, 10).Value
                    End With

I wanted to create a subset of the BPMN profile a while back and asked if it was available to edit.  The answer was know, you have to build it up yourself using the metaclasses - so I suspect the same applies here.

A work around would be to create a profile toolbox with your extra element(s) which you can get to appear along with the other toolbox by using the settings for the toolbox view.

I have a profile in which I have linked 2 stereotypes with a tagged value connector.
The stereotypes appear OK when I import the profile and when I click on the tagged value defined by the connector the selection dialogue comes up; however, the dialogue allows me to select any type of element whereas I was expecting it to restrict the selection the stereotype that is the target of the connector.
I am sure this worked OK when I did it a couple of years ago. Has anyone else encountered this or have I missed something in setting up the connector?

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / memo tags in stereotypes
« on: December 19, 2012, 02:47:07 am »
I have created profile stereotypes with tags as <memo> so that I am not constrained in the amount of text they can hold.  The only downside is that the word <memo> and any explanatory text is always output, has anyone found a way of avoiding this (the reason being that otherwise the users have to edit each tag even if they do not need to use it).


Another way I have used when there were on 2 of us on independant networks was to use replication.  I set up a master and each of us had a replica; however, you need to have a good daily process and fast network connection for synchronisation to work well.

The help has a good guide to using replication.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]