Timeaware Modeling TMA - bug in version 17 ?

[Viking]

Hi,

I created a new package, a new diagram in it, a new element and a second element with a composition-relation between them on the diagram.
I created a clone of the package and changed the version to 2.0. The cloned diagram shows the first and second element with its composition (as expected).
In the cloned diagram, I cloned the original element and changed the version to 2.0.

As a result I expected that the built-in traceability window, "insert Related Elements" and the own traceability diagram show the trace relation.
• works as expected: :
  - in version 16.1.1628 64-bit with qeax.
  - in version 15.2.1560 32-bit with eapx.
• does NOT work as expected in version 17.0.1704 32 bit and 64 bit with MariaDB, qeax, or feap. The built-in traceability window does not show the trace relation. The "insert Related Elements" does not show the trace relation (rem.: the composition is shown).

I verified the steps several times.

[Takeshi K]

Hi,

As my other post for your post, EA now does not create a Trace connector between the TAM objects. At least, I am sure that this is not a bug.

For the TAM feature, I think this behaviour (we cannot add the TAM objects by the Insert Related Elements feature) is reasonable since the 'same' TAM objects in the different timeframe should not be in the same diagram.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Hi,

As my other post for your post, EA now does not create a Trace connector between the TAM objects. At least, I am sure that this is not a bug.

For the TAM feature, I think this behaviour (we cannot add the TAM objects by the Insert Related Elements feature) is reasonable since the 'same' TAM objects in the different timeframes should not be in the same diagram.

(my emphasis)
Hi Takeshi-san,
We have the 'same' TAM objects on the same diagram all the time.  We have developed Transition diagrams to show how one item 'evolves' over time.  It also allows us to make sure that all the items involved in the transition are correctly accounted for.

Do you have some theoretical reason for the statement?
Just interested,
Paolo

[Viking]

As my other post for your post, EA now does not create a Trace connector between the TAM objects. At least, I am sure that this is not a bug.

I followed the instructions in the manual.

For the TAM feature, I think this behaviour (we cannot add the TAM objects by the Insert Related Elements feature) is reasonable since the 'same' TAM objects in the different timeframe should not be in the same diagram.

Without that feature, does TAM still make sense at all?

[Modesto Vega]

Reading through this, I also have a couple of question:

• When upgrading to V17, what happens to the <<trace>> relationships created by any TMA done in previous version of Sparx EA?
• If these legacy traces are not upgraded, how does V17 identify and present these old TMA traces to users?

[Viking]

Reading through this, I also have a couple of question:

• When upgrading to V17, what happens to the <<trace>> relationships created by any TMA done in previous version of Sparx EA?
• If these legacy traces are not upgraded, how does V17 identify and present these old TMA traces to users?

Version 17 keeps and shows the trace-relationship. Trace is a stereotype based on Dependency.

[Modesto Vega]

Thank you, Viking.

So the issue with V17 is that it is no longer possible to bring cloned elements into the same diagram as their clones using the "Insert Related Elements" option. Conceptually, I can see why that is not desirable. But Practically, I am not that sure. Ultimately, I would like to have a time aware gap modelling diagram, something possibly very similar to what Paolo is referring to.

[Viking]

Thank you, Viking.
So the issue with V17 is that it is no longer possible to bring cloned elements into the same diagram as their clones using the "Insert Related Elements" option. Conceptually, I can see why that is not desirable. But Practically, I am not that sure. Ultimately, I would like to have a time aware gap modelling diagram, something possibly very similar to what Paolo is referring to.

"Clone Element as New Version" does not create a trace-relationship in version 17 (1). The consequence is also, that "Insert Related Elements" cannot be used, because the trace-relationship is not there (2). So, (1) is the root cause.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Thank you, Viking.
So the issue with V17 is that it is no longer possible to bring cloned elements into the same diagram as their clones using the "Insert Related Elements" option. Conceptually, I can see why that is not desirable. But Practically, I am not that sure. Ultimately, I would like to have a time-aware gap modelling diagram, something possibly very similar to what Paolo is referring to.

"Clone Element as New Version" does not create a trace relationship in version 17 (1). The consequence is also that "Insert Related Elements" cannot be used because the trace relationship is not there (2). So, (1) is the root cause.

So, is that by design or a regression bug in v17?  If the former, what is the rationale?  If the latter, when will it be fixed?

Paolo

[Modesto Vega]

"Clone Element as New Version" does not create a trace-relationship in version 17 (1). The consequence is also, that "Insert Related Elements" cannot be used, because the trace-relationship is not there (2). So, (1) is the root cause.

This was my reading of your original post. Hence the question about what happens with legacy uses of TMA.

Assuming that the traceability matrix still works, based of your original post I think it does. What does V17 used instead to keep track of how TMA evolves over time?


And, as Paolo asks. Is it by design or a bug?