Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Paul Lotz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
General Board / Re: attribute range and unit; best practice?
« on: November 17, 2017, 05:50:31 am »
For the record, I submitted a new bug report regarding the inability to display attribute constraints on a class diagram.

I just wanted to reiterate this would be highly desirable.

General Board / attribute range and unit; best practice?
« on: November 17, 2017, 05:18:00 am »
I have asked related questions about profiles and showing attribute constraints before, but I will take a step back and ask a more basic question.

What is the best practice for showing attribute range (min, max) and unit in UML? (SysML has a somewhat different answer.)

For context, we are modeling signals in a publish-subscribe system. These signals have attributes, and some of these attributes have properties (e.g., a numeric value representing a reference input or a measured value has a range and a unit). I consider these to be invariant constraints defined on the attribute, but I suppose it practically is also possible to model these as tagged values. Does anyone have a suggested best practice?
For the record, my baseline is simply to add a set of invariant constraints to each attribute. (These are simple: {unit = m}, {min = 5}, {max = 15}. We parse this ourselves so we don't need to comply with OCL syntax.) The constraints show up fine in the exported UML. A drawback (discussed for years) is that these constraints do not appear on a class diagram in Enterprise Architect.


I encountered the same issue in EA 13. Updating to the latest build (1351) did not help. I submitted a bug report.

Build 1307 (hopefully updating this week):
The "Requirement Report - Summary" document template, for instance, does not produce desirable results with SysML 1.4 requirements, since the requirement ID and text are now in SysML tagged values (which is a good thing). It would be a good idea to create a new (or modified) system template that works well with SysML 1.4, if this has not already been done.

Thanks. I know about those. Even if I deselect all the compartments that show here, the compartment with the requirements remains. I think this is due to the shape script.


Oh, and if I copy existing requirements from a previous model (probably not SysML 1.4, but I copy the requirement text from a note field to the SysML 1.4 <requirement> 'text' field, the behavior is different. The first compartment does not appear. I have to configure the diagram to show element tagged values.

General Board / sysml requirements tag on diagram -- cannot turn off?
« on: August 08, 2017, 07:34:21 am »
I am working in build 1307. (Hopefully we will upgrade soon.)

On a SysML 1.4 requirement diagram I place a new Requirement element (from the Toolbox).
I enter the text of the requirement. (This is now in a SysML 1.4 'text' tagged value, rather than in the element Note. This itself is a major improvement.
The SysML 1.4 tags (id, text) automatically show in a compartment in the element on the diagram, which, in itself, is not a bad thing.
If I configure the diagram to show element tags, the tags appear again in a separate compartment.
If I configure the diagram not to show element tags, the second compartment disappears, but the first compartment with the requirement tagged values remains.

What makes the first set appear in the first place?  Is it possible not to display this information (if a user does not want this to display)?. Maybe this is defined in a shape script in the SysML profile?

I may just use this as is, but I would like to be sure I understand what is happening in the diagram.


On the Connectors tab of the Diagram Properties dialog, there is an option to Suppress All Connector Labels.
In the case at hand, however, I need at least some of the connector labels to be visible. I want to hide the labels on the required and provided interfaces between which I am drawing the connectors. Is there a way to hide interface labels in a diagram? If so, how? (I haven't found such an option in the pop-up dialog for the diagram, nor have I found such an option in the pop-up menu options for the interfaces themselves.)

I found the problem in my case. The template I was using has its own Document Options, which apparently were overriding my selection in the Generate Documentation dialog.

Is there any more information on this?

I also am seeing elements without notes in documents generated from my UML and SysML models (EA Build 1107). Previously generated versions of the same document did not have this issue. I am using model documents, so this should be highly repeatable.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: QA Reports Filters do not function correctly
« on: February 24, 2017, 11:38:51 am »
OK, EA support already replied to me. The "Keyword like" search uses the "Keywords" property of the Use Case. (That does make sense, after all.) I mistakenly thought it searched in the use case names. So this is user error on my part rather than a bug. Now I know how to use the feature.


Fair enough.

(The referenced section below -- 9.4.4 -- actually does indicate that the notation should include [[<multiplicity-range>]], but the document could be clearer about what this means.)


Clarify diagram notation for collection parameters in operation

Unified Modeling Language Version 2.5 specification

9.4.4 Notation, p. 108

Please clarify the notation diagram for indicating that an operation parameter is a collection (e.g., array). Some tools do not indicate this on the diagram, but simply indicate the base type. It is unclear to me, at least, if the specification really requires anything else. It would seem to be appropriate for a future version of the specification to require this and to specify the manner in which this appears.

Suggestions and Requests / QA Reports Filters do not function correctly
« on: February 24, 2017, 04:35:57 am »
I have tried to use this feature for some time, and it hasn't worked. I thought maybe I just wasn't understanding how to use it, but it seems pretty clear to me I am using it as one would expect it to work. I filed the following report.

"I want to filter the use cases that appear in the Use Cases in the QA Reports. I should be able to do this using the "Keyword like" button. (From the help: "Include Use Cases with a keyword that matches the wildcard value in the field.")
The actual behavior is not thus, however. For instance, entering a valid keyword in the "Keyword like" field (and clicking Reload) returns 0 results. This is true even if the value is '*'.'
This functionality would be very useful if it worked correctly. Please fix it."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17