46
Bugs and Issues / Re: Diagrams are ordered underneath packages in project browser
« on: June 21, 2022, 06:13:51 pm »Thank you Eve, you made my day.Wot 'e sed!![]()
Geert
Paolo
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.
Thank you Eve, you made my day.Wot 'e sed!![]()
Geert
No, the relationship isn't incorrect, the words in the Trace window and on the QuickLinker menu are wrong. The OP doesn't need to do anything to his model except to carry on modelling...Thanks for clarifying, KP. I was a little confused since the "standard" Trace relationship is fine.
Oh Boy now what do we don this type of situation, we rewrite our custom shapescript to draw the incorrect relationship in the correct way, but we don't extend other MDGs (usually) so it's easier for us.![]()
The code I shared actually traverses some of the relations and puts them onto the diagram.Yes, Rob, Geert is now an old man, and I am even more ancient!
There's not much more I can do. You'll have to dig in, and try it yourself. If you find yourself stuck, by all means, post here (although maybe next time use only black text, my eyes hurt a bit trying to read your colourful posts)
Geert
I remember I was searching for that menu for the first time for quite a time. EA as usual...15 years of using EA and I never thought to do that before...
q.
I stumbled over this too and found no solution. Except you would write an add-in for it.
q.
Offline now. But IIRC, in the context of the top bar, there's a Hide.Sorry, q, not that I can find. Can you confirm with your version?
q.
Does anyone know why EA doesn't allow MDGs to create alternate project browser images for extensions to 'package' ? There's just a 1-liner in the documentation (V15.2: 'This does not apply to package elements").Hi Ian,
Has anyone tried to get around this by defining a specialization of an element instead - for example as an extension of 'class' - and using this in place of a specialized package? Seems like most things will still work, except stuff like 'show package contents' in diagrams. Are there any big gotchas out there?
I seem to want this capability quite a lot, to show the modeller that not all packages are alike, and some should have certain kinds of elements, and others ones other kinds. Seems intuitive.
Is it possible to decorate the built-in icon?
@Sparx - is this just something you didn't get around to yet, or is there some deep reason why we shouldn't do it?
Thanks Thomas and Eve, I'll give a try.Call me a literalist, but I would have thought PackagePath should yield the path to the package (as described in the browser.) Whereas, PackageNamespace might return the Namespace created by traversing the package path from the namespace root (which could be anywhere on that path) and the package - taking into account any suppressed packages (that shouldn't contribute to the namespace). The results could be quite different for the two properties (or identical in many cases).
Eve, I suspect that packagepath may not do what I am after, please see this thread for context https://sparxsystems.com/forums/smf/index.php/topic,46931.0.html.
Yes, it makes sense that the user would want at least some types from the new technology. In an already tight restriction, it makes sense to require explicit selection of the newly allowed types.
When adding a new technology to a strict model based perspective set, nothing in that new technology is selected by default.Wot 'e sed!
You have to manually select all the elements, diagrams etc... before they can be used.
The default should be that everything is selected, so you can uncheck what you don't need.
Reported
Geert