Author Topic: Relationship Matrix (optionally) suppress path details  (Read 222 times)

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5851
  • Karma: +71/-75
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Relationship Matrix (optionally) suppress path details
« on: August 31, 2017, 05:11:20 pm »
We hold all out elements in special branches, away from the diagrams.  Since we have so many, we have multi-leveled alphabetic folders to group them in.  When we display them on the Relationship Matrix (and use the "Include ... Children" option), the path to the element is rendered.  While for many use cases, this is useful, it is particularly annoying for this one.  Please make the display of the path optional for both origin and destination.

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

PeterHeintz

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 540
  • Karma: +36/-14
    • View Profile
Re: Relationship Matrix (optionally) suppress path details
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2017, 06:40:50 pm »
Hi Paolo,
I assume you are looking for a feature to suppress path for Source and Target individually and you know the suppression feature for target and source together, what is there.

+1

Best regards,

Peter Heintz

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5851
  • Karma: +71/-75
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: Relationship Matrix (optionally) suppress path details
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2017, 10:06:44 am »
Hi Paolo,
I assume you are looking for a feature to suppress path for Source and Target individually and you know the suppression feature for target and source together, what is there.

+1
Yes, while in my specific example - that we're using, it was on both and so using the [ ] Show Package Names checkbox fixed it.  The elements are at our "Enterprise level" where we have large folders arranged alphabetically.  In our project levels there is no such alphabetic requirement and so we might need to suppress one and not the other.  Looking back, I can see I wasn't as clear as I could have been.  (Blame it on the bus - where I normally post to the forum).   ;D

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