More information from Project Integrity check

[Hermelin]

When I run the Project Integrity Check it reports a few errors as Invalid connector, on Item Generalization with the proposed action Delete Connector.

Wouldn't it be neat if it could tell you where in the model this problem was found, for example which elements are involved in the issue? Perhaps give me a ID or GUID so I could look it up and not just delete it...

[qwerty]

We had this discussion already  

The problem with this consistency check is, that even if EA would tell you more you would not be wiser. Why is the GUID duplicate and why can EA correct it and why doesn't it do that anyway? So my advise/wish: have the check run silently and regularly without user notice.

q.

[Hermelin]

Oh, it didn't turn up when I searched for "integrity".  :-?

 I don't really see why one wouldn't be wiser with more information. I might not know why the error happened, but I would feel much more comfortable if I knew what EA was about to remove from my model.

But if it have been discussed we can leave it.

[qwerty]

I still think that this integrity check could be improved. As said: I'd like to have it run once a week automatically in the background without user notification. Those notifications don't help me anyway. I just know that running the check prevents strange things to happen.

q.

[Helmut Ortmann]

Hello,

do you want that your model is always in good shape?

I don't think that the SPARX validation will fit to your requirements.

If you believe in model validation you have to define your validation rules. SPARX provides a useful validation framework. With this you or a supplier is able to make validations for your organization.

Keep in mind: UML never defines your modeling rules. Therefore SPARX rules are only a starting point. You have to decide what is important to check and what not.

If you start with your validation you will soon learn what is useful for you and what is not. The useful or not will change with the maturity of your organization.

Helmut

[qwerty]

Hi Helmut,
I guess you're on the wrong track. This is about the repository integrity check, not about model validation on UML level.

q.

[Uffe]

I would also like to see not a little but a lot more information out of the integrity check. The "Item" column lists names at best (or just the object type); if this could be split into "Item Type" and "Item GUID" that would help A LOT.

Also, having the option to Find in Project Browser, as well as a selective Resolve (which would carry out the Proposed Action on only one item in the list) would be fantastic. I know it won't be relevant for all reported problems, but it will be for some.

Yes it would be better if this tool were never needed, but that's a meaningless argument. There are a thousand and one reasons why a database can go out of whack, many of which have nothing to do with the quality of the client software.

Better repository management tools would be really useful, especially for larger installations.

[rchalie]

Quite agree. Regardless of the origin of the inconsistencies (db errors, modelling mistakes) I would very much like to know where in my model the issues are located, to see if I need to redo some of my work after having EA correct the inconsistencies.

[Walter.Kuhn]

I agree too. Just got some errors while I tried to import a project from a file into a database. Got SQL erros in import; then ran integrity check, got more errors but I cannot find what could be wrong. Reindexed the whole, but still the same cryptic ErrIGS SIAors...

[qwerty]

You should contact Sparx with that issue. Anyhow, turning off all MDGs/add-ins often leads to finding the culprit somewhere else than just EA (not talking about the latest versions which seem to be a melting pot for bugs of all breeds).

q.