Author Topic: Another Relationship matrix request  (Read 4143 times)

Gibbo

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Another Relationship matrix request
« on: November 06, 2006, 04:08:36 am »
Howabout the ability to ignore elements if they have no relationships of the type being looked up.

Eg.  if the link type is Dependancy then supress all source and target elements that don't have a dependancy, showing only those that do.

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • Karma: +257/-129
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: Another Relationship matrix request
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2006, 05:56:24 am »
Quote
Howabout the ability to ignore elements if they have no relationships of the type being looked up.

Eg.  if the link type is Dependancy then supress all source and target elements that don't have a dependancy, showing only those that do.
Seconded!

Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

«Midnight»

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5651
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • That nice Mister Grey
    • View Profile
Re: Another Relationship matrix request
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2006, 10:40:52 am »
And a third!
No, you can't have it!

nara_c

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Another Relationship matrix request
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2006, 07:33:36 pm »
If the relationship matrix does not show elements without the specified relationship, then you may not be able to establish new relationships using the matrix.  This is a useful feature, so unless I missed something, you are effectively voting to take out some functionality.


Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • Karma: +257/-129
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: Another Relationship matrix request
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2006, 07:53:36 pm »
Quote
If the relationship matrix does not show elements without the specified relationship, then you may not be able to establish new relationships using the matrix.  This is a useful feature, so unless I missed something, you are effectively voting to take out some functionality.

Yes and No...  I can't speak for the others, but I was anticipating a [ ] Show All checkbox to either show the active only or all as required.  This type of interface often occurs with sparse matrices - which these normally are...

HTH,
Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

«Midnight»

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5651
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • That nice Mister Grey
    • View Profile
Re: Another Relationship matrix request
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2006, 04:03:38 am »
Yes, that's it!

Once again Paolo's said it just right.
No, you can't have it!

Gibbo

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Another Relationship matrix request
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2006, 05:50:54 am »
Yes Paulo thats exactly what I was thinking of.  A simple filtered view of all the relationships that exist in a package and subpackages.  As for establishing new relationships using the matrix, we dont use this feature, but I can understand it being useful for some.  Like Paulo says the ability to switch between this and the standard view would enhance the relationship matrix greatly.

nara_c

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Another Relationship matrix request
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2006, 12:21:30 pm »
I agree.  This way people like me who use the relationship matrix to sometimes add traceability between a requirement and Use case are still able to do so and it also meets the need of those who want to see the filtered view.

Sure if someone puts this up as a request, you will see this introduced in EA within the next few updates.  They have always been quick to add such features.