Outputting 'realised by' elements in RTF docs

[Iestyn]

Howdy

Stupid question number 2

The RTF template allows me to add a 'realizes' infil, but there doesn't seem to be a concept of the reverse, a 'realized by' infil.

This is a bit of a pain as I'm trying to generate a report of requirements and want to output the Use Case that realizes the requirement against each req.

I've checked the forums, helpfiles and white papers but can't find anything handy. So can anyone tell me if and how this can be done, or just let me know if I'm being a giant spanner again please?

Cheers

Matt

[RoyC]

Try looking at the Dependency Report and Implementation Report - do these give you the information you want?

http://www.sparxsystems.com/uml_tool_guide/enterprise_architect_reports/dependsreport.html

http://www.sparxsystems.com/uml_tool_guide/enterprise_architect_reports/implementationreport.html

[Iestyn]

Hey Roy

Cheers for that, I had had a look at those already and yes the info's there. Unfortunately the report itself is a sparse and I cannot manipulate the information that is output to include the other information required by the business.

What I really needed was a way to get this information infilling into a maintainable RTF template (imagine something very similar to your standard requirements report, but with the addition of a 'Use Case' field against each requirement detailing the Use Case that it is realized by).

Thanks

Matt

[Dermot]

If you are reporting Requirements and the Use Case that Realise these, then it is best to use (in a table) the Connector::Source::element and Connector::Target::element to show the related Use Cases & in the Options set the Connector type to filter only "Realisation" (needs build 834+).
In reverse -  for Use Cases there is the Section:  External Requirements - that returns these explicitly.

[Iestyn]

Cheers very much Dermot. Looks like that could have been exactly what I wanted, unfortunately we're on build 817 here, so I may have to encourage them to update if they want this output on the documentation so badly

Matt