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 - Paul Lotz

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17
Bugs and Issues / Re: Lost Locks when using Subversion
« on: October 07, 2009, 04:45:35 am »
I haven't experienced crashes viewing the history or undoing check-outs, both of which we do all the time.  It surprises me that you have that happen.  I guess we've been lucky!  You might contact Sparx support for issues like that (if you haven't already).  That seems very unusual to me.

Bugs and Issues / Re: Lost Locks when using Subversion
« on: October 07, 2009, 04:25:16 am »
"Get All Latest" retrieves the latest version of a package (and its subpackages) from version control.  See  It is quite a useful command!

I do agree that there is room for improvement in EA's version control, but we have found that once we've become accustomed to it (there are a couple quirks, yes) it has nonetheless been amazingly helpful,  reliable so far, and really pretty easy to use.  Don't give up yet!  It won't be long before you're glad you invested a little time getting it up and running.

I'm guessing you are past this point, but if you or someone else is setting up Version Control I recommend reading the white paper on the topic here:

Some general recommendations with respect to EA's version control:
1) Check in packages, not .eap files!
2) Here if we want to add packages to version control we configure the package for version control manually.  That way we have the option to specify (EA still makes the logical suggestion) the name of the .xmi file.  I don't think this is critical, but it works well for us.

Bugs and Issues / Re: Lost Locks when using Subversion
« on: October 07, 2009, 03:55:36 am »
I'm not sure this will help in your particular case, but here are a couple things I have found:
1) Right-clicking on a package and choosing Package Control... File Properties brings up some information including which user has a lock.
2) I have previously encountered the situation where a package shows as locked but shouldn't.  In these cases I have been able to use the TortoiseSVN "Release lock" command successfully and then everything works.  It sounds like you have already tried to release the lock through Subversion, though.  I haven't seen that so I don't know how to resolve that issue.

Bugs and Issues / Re: The Undo button has a Save Icon
« on: July 24, 2009, 04:58:47 am »
I (and others before me) reported this to EA.  Sparx support said this is logged as a bug and noted:
"You should be able to "reset" to the correct icon by using the "Tools | Customize | Toolbars | Reset All" option or select only "Default Tools"
and use the "Reset" option. (Please note, this will reset any toolbox customizations you may have made)."

The proposed solution worked for me!


Bugs and Issues / Re: Imported elements are not "autonamed"
« on: July 03, 2009, 02:59:28 am »
OK, well, I have only imported requirements from DOORS.  In that case, DOORS assigns a unique ID to each requirement, and I map that to an alias field in EA.

I see ("Requirements Management with Enterprise Architect" paper) that when one imports requirements from a CSV file EA can preserve existing requirements IDs in the source document and hence EA does not normally need to autonumber the requirements.  (There could be a way to change this.)

I'm not sure this helps at all or even if it's correct in your case, but it might help to think that we want to preserve the IDs in the source file, which in these cases is outside EA.


Bugs and Issues / Re: Imported elements are not "autonamed"
« on: July 02, 2009, 08:13:17 am »
From what source are you importing the requirements?

Bugs and Issues / Re: activity on act. diagram not under diagram in
« on: May 17, 2008, 06:49:37 am »
1. If you drag common elements not inside the activity using them, but  beside it in a diagram, they will not move in the hierarchy. And why should they be inside when they have been factored out?

2. You can convert an activity to an action and vice versa using the "Element-Advanced-Change Type" menu.

Frank, you are correct.  Factored-out parts don't belong low-down in the hierarchy.  That was my mistake.  So yes, I think things in that respect are the way they should be.  I just need to understand the existential underpinnings of activities and actions, and Neil has given some good guidance there.

And thanks for the Change Type information.  I thought maybe I had seen it somewhere but couldn't find it when I was writing my previous message.

I think I'm (slowly) getting it.  Many thanks to Frank, David, and Neil for providing the answers!!!


Bugs and Issues / Re: activity on act. diagram not under diagram in
« on: May 15, 2008, 09:06:28 am »
Here is another problem (I was afraid of this) that occurs with the subactivity link method.  If I drag an activity (paste as simple link) onto the activity diagram for the host activity and drag it onto the activity element for the host activity, then the subactivity moves below the host activity in the project (which seems proper).  Now often this is what I want, but it is not desired if the subactivity is used in multiple places (which happens, for instance, if I have factored out common behavior from a high-level use case, which is good design).

The alternative is to opt to paste the activity as an invocation of the activity (Action) which is where we were before.  At this point I would expect that we would be able to show any embedded elements (esp. activity parameters) in the invoked activity as action pins on the action, but unfortunately this is not the case.  Moreover, the action should be linked to the invoked activity, but it is not.  So we are back to the same basic issues.

Bugs and Issues / Re: activity on act. diagram not under diagram in
« on: May 15, 2008, 08:00:54 am »

In practice using subactivities on an activity diagram in EA as you suggest seems to offer a number of advantages (maintenance of hierarchy, as well as ease of using embedded activity parameters).  So thanks!

What makes me nervous is:
1) From what I can tell (and I haven't found a great definition, but what I glean from the UML spec. and other sources follows) actions should work as subactivities currently do.  In other words, we should be using actions instead of subactivities (except where I noted in my previous message) and the actions should provide the same hierarchical and object flow advantages currently sported by subactivities.  I suggest the action behavior is incorrect and EA will want to fix this.
2) I don't think it is possible to convert an action to an activity or vice versa in EA, so it would be painful to start with one and then switch to the other after the fact.
3) The hierarchy is maintained well using subactivities but I wonder if pasting a linked copy of a subactivity on its subdiagram and then adding parts to it is semantically correct (I don't know the answer to this one--the inserted parts have no semantic link to the pasted link, but I suppose the pasted link functions much like a diagram frame--otherwise missing from EA, would function), although it certainly does the trick graphically.

Anyway, despite my misgivings, this seems to be the best approach currently available in EA and I will try working with it.  Thanks for your advice!


Bugs and Issues / Re: activity on act. diagram not under diagram in
« on: May 15, 2008, 02:18:14 am »
Why did you create an instance "Action1" of the EditConfiguration activity?

What I do in such cases is this:

1. Make the EditConfiguration activity composite.
2. Into the EditConfiguration diagram which is then created, drag the EditConfiguration activity (as simple link, not as instance).
3. Resize the EditConfiguration activity in the child diagram so that it fills most of the page (leavig space for common objects and activities to be placed outside and called from inside it).
4. Draw new ConfigureSubsystem1 a.s.o activities inside the EditConfiguration activity on the child diagram.

This should lead to the hierarchy in the project browser that you want.

Thanks, Frank.  The distinction I am trying to make is that I am detailing an action, not an activity, via an activity diagram.  This should be legal (and more proper!) in UML but EA doesn't maintain the hierarchy as I would expect.

[I am finding the distinction between activity and action in UML to be not all that meaningful.  My interpretation is that an activity should generally be composed of actions, which in turn can be detailed in further activity diagrams.  An activity diagram may have activities on it when we detail a complex structure containing multiple actions--rather than putting it in a subdiagram, but anything "atomic" on the current diagram should be an action.  (An action isn't necessarily really atomic since it can be broken down with arbitrary complexity on a separate diagram).  If there is a more accurate interpretation I'd love to hear it.]

Bugs and Issues / Re: activity on act. diagram not under diagram in
« on: May 14, 2008, 10:02:56 am »
I read that in the specification.  I see that I do need to change the action to call behavior, but I don't see how it helps resolve the particular issue, though.  Not sure if it's me.

Let me give an example.  (I wish I could post a project file, but I will include some images instead.)

Suppose we want to indicate how we would do configuration using object flow.  Then we might set up a ConfigureSystem Activity like so:
We need to further define what happens in the EditConfiguration action, which we can do thus: .
In practice I chose to made the original EditConfiguration action composite, which created a new activity diagram under the EditConfiguration action, but when I added an EditConfiguration activity to the EditConfiguration activity diagram, the EditConfiguration activity was not associated with the diagram but appeared in the package root: .
At least double-clicking on the EditConfiguration action does bring up the EditConfiguration activity diagram.
I tried creating a new action that was a call behavior linked to the EditBehavior activity (behavioral classifier).  This may be correct, but I still see problems here: 1) There is no hierarchy in the project for activitiees; 2) double-clicking on the new action does not bring up the EditConfiguration activity diagram--although I presume I could force it to do so by making it composite and moving the diagram, and 3) most importantly, the EditConfiguration activity still has no connection to the activity diagram on which it resides in the project.  I think the last is the biggest issue.  Why can't the EditConfiguration activity reside with the EditConfiguration diagram in the project?

Place an action on an activity diagram.  Make the action complex so that EA creates a new activity diagram (for detailing the action) beneath the action in the project hierarchy.  On this new diagram add an activity (common in the case in which we want to show object flow).  The new activity does not appear associated with the diagram in the project.  (Instead, it appears at the root level for the package.)  I think this is a bug.  (If we use activities instead of actions this is not the case, by the way, but I think it is more correct to use actions.)

Uml Process / Re: Triggers, type: change, tutorials ?
« on: May 09, 2014, 02:58:54 am »
An example of a ChangeEvent is, for motion on an axis, the move completes (so, inPositionIsTrue=T, or movingIsTrue=F, or some other similar attribute).  (Prior to the event, of course, the values of these attributes were different.)

In a state machine model, you can add a transition between two states, define the transition Type as Change, define a specification for the trigger (in v 10.0.1009--I don't remember being able to do this before), and save this newly defined trigger.

I don't see a way to show the specification on the diagram, unfortunately.  (We found it more expressive in the past to define a transition with only a guard instead (e.g., [inPositionIsTrue=T], in order to distinguish visually between SignalEvents and ChangeEvents.  This was OK for us since we weren't trying to generate code, but a ChangeEvent is more proper UML.  It is legal to name the ChangeEvent inPositionIsTrue=T, but there may be a better way to express that.  I'd like to hear some ideas on this.)


Uml Process / Re: State Machines, entry/exit actions and classes
« on: August 31, 2012, 02:53:05 am »
It's not entirely clear to me what you are doing, so I may repeat a bit of what you are actually doing.

For something like this we implement the state machine using the State Pattern.  For this we have a Context class (I think this would be your Class) and then states that we implement as state classes.  This means that each state class can define its own entry and exit methods [(e.g., Enabled:entry()].  Each method on a state class can invoke one or more methods on the Context* to carry out specific (atomic) tasks, in any desired arrangment.

*We actually break the Context class of the classic State Pattern into two pieces, Context and Model.  Context provides an interface to clients and contains a Model object.  Model provides an interface to the State methods.

Uml Process / Re: Newbie UML question: configuration parameters?
« on: June 29, 2011, 04:04:14 am »
Oh, and the classes that use a configuration have an attribute for that configuration.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17