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.


Topics - Uffe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Suggestions and Requests / Package Indicator for Here Be Locks
« on: June 15, 2018, 08:49:28 pm »
Hi all,

User locks are indicated with blue exclamation marks for "locked by me" and red ones for "locked by someone else."
It would be useful to be able to see at any package whether something in it, but not the package itself, is locked by me or (less importantly) by someone else -- all the way up to the root node.

Maybe a smaller exclamation mark, maybe an italic one, maybe a paler one, maybe something else, but having some kind of indication would help a lot.


/Uffe

2
Bugs and Issues / Project browser auto-side-scroll
« on: June 14, 2018, 01:16:20 am »
Hey all,


13.5 on Windows 10, the auto-side-scrolling project browser is driving me up the freakin post. For a project with more depth and/or longer names than some trivial Mickey-Mouse example it's worse than useless.

Not sure if this is EA's fault or some Windows bullsh*t but it doesn't really matter. Point is, is there a way to switch it off?
Only remedy I've found is to widen the window till it covers half the screen. Meaning I can't see the diagrams.


/Uffe

3
Hi all,


Here's a left-field one.

When working with multiple projects and moving models between them, being able to quickly compare two instances of the same model is useful.

One way of doing this is to start two EA instances, undock the same window in both of them, align the two windows pixel-perfect one on top of the other, and then alt-tab between them looking for anything that "blinks". This is an obvious approach when working with diagrams, but really it works equally well with any type of window (properties, project browser, element browser...).

This type of visual comparison would be simplified by the ability to transparentifize the windows. That's a word. You could then just undock one, make it transparent and move it on top of the other, still-docked window; or you could undock both, make them both transparent, line them up and anything that shows up faint will only be present in one window, ie a difference.


/Uffe

4
Suggestions and Requests / Add location to Required MDG Technologies
« on: June 08, 2018, 09:45:31 pm »
Hi all,


The Required MDG Technologies feature is useful, but it requires that users have the same MDG Technology paths set up. This is no issue for built-in technologies, but for locally developed ones it can be.

Specifically, if I want to trial a newer version of an MDG Technology I deploy it to a different network share than the "release" one. I would like to be able to set up a project to use my "trial" version instead of the "release" one and simply point my trial team to that project, but I can't do that because the MDGRequire and MDGBlklist (in t_genopt) specify the technologies by ID, not by file name.

So if the location could be added, either by using the technology file's path or by adding a t_genopt option for the MDG search path, I could specify the technology and path in my trial project and everyone would have a smoother EA experience.


As an alternative, of course, if the "MDG Technologies" dialog, as well as the required/disabled technologies option, were made version-aware, that would be even better.

By that I mean that the respective dialogs should list every version of each MDG Technology they find and force the user to choose exactly one of each such group. The technologies would be identified by their IDs, and listed with their version IDs.


Yet another alternative would be to store the technology ID + version ID in t_genopt. That would be good enough, although of course it wouldn't resolve the case where two MDG Technology files have the same technology ID and version ID -- but really that's poor version control on the developer's part.


/Uffe

5
Hi all,

Pro Cloud Server 2.1 introduced a "Server Based Plugin Interface".
Is this available somehow, somewhere, to tool builders?

Or is it just a way for Sparx to deploy its own integration products?


/Uffe

6
Hi everybody,


The quick linker definition format allows you to specify "captions" or menu item labels, in columns K and L.

It would be useful to be able to use macros which resolve to the source/target element names, eg #SRCNAME#.
The macros should honour the "Use Alias if Available" option in the diagram.

Yes?


/Uffe

7
Hi all,


It would be useful to be able to force EA to open a particular page of the property dialog by default for a stereotyped element.

Is there a special attribute that can be set, or some other way to achieve this?

I'm thinking in particular of the custom tagged value page that EA creates. When you're designing stereotypes which are essentially just placeholders for a specific set of tagged values, having that page opened automatically on double-click would be a small but valuable time saver.

Cheers,


/Uffe

8
Suggestions and Requests / "New Project" in EA 14
« on: May 04, 2018, 06:15:48 pm »
Hi all,


The "New Project" function opens a dialog where you can select file type:
  • Enterprise Architect Project (*.eapx)
  • Enterprise Architect Project (*.eap)
  • Enterprise Architect Project (*.feap)
.eapx is new, the two others were in 13 as well.

The problem with this is that there's no explanation of what the different choices entail. A better list would be
  • Enterprise Architect Project / JET 4 (*.eapx)
  • Enterprise Architect Project / JET 3 (*.eap)
  • Enterprise Architect Project / Firebird (*.feap)

The "New Project" menu item should also be reworked so that it contains a submenu with items for the three file types. If you click the "New Project" item, the current dialog should be displayed, but if you point without clicking, the submenu should be expanded.


/Uffe

9
Bugs and Issues / Formatting on v14 Recent Features page
« on: May 03, 2018, 01:36:55 am »
Hi,

I'm looking at the long list of features, fixes and tweaks in v14, and the formatting is off in some places which makes the page hard to read. Under 1400 "Execuable Statemachines" (sic) there's a bunch of stuff that's got nothing to do with state machines, and in that section as well as others (BPSim for one), all the bullets have been placed on the top level rather than the intended indented ones. I'm sure there are other similar issues on that page.

Completely boring, I know, but it would really be helpful if this could be fixed.


/Uffe

10
Bugs and Issues / RefGUIDList tag: field too small
« on: April 27, 2018, 11:29:25 pm »
Hi all,


I'm working with a profile where I've got a tagged value connector from one stereotype to another, with the target role multiplicity set to 0..*.
This is the equivalent of creating a RefGUIDList tagged value type.

The problem is that, after I've generated the MDG Technology, if I select more than six elements I get an error dialog saying

DAO.Field [3163]
The field is too small to accept the amount of data you attempted to add. Try inserting or pasting less data.


This is obviously because a GUID is 38 characters, which means a list of six GUIDs requires 233 characters, and with a maximum of 255 characters in the field another list entry won't fit.

The 255-character tagged value limit can be normally worked around with a <memo> value. So here's the question: is there a way of combining <memo> and RefGUIDList?

I tried creating a tagged value with the same name as an attribute in my stereotype, but that didn't work. I also tried manually editing the profile XML data to force the contents of a <memo> tagged value type into the RefGUIDList tag definition, but no luck.

Anyone else?


/Uffe

11
General Board / Choosing a tool
« on: April 26, 2018, 06:54:23 pm »
Hi all,


This is a tangent from Ian's thread concerning EA vs Aris for process modelling.

I realize that 'it depends' is the most logical answer, but, like most clients, they haven't decided exactly how they are going to do their process modelling.
And I think this is a reasonable approach.
But before you scream 'that's no way to choose a modelling tool', given that they have realized they WILL need a tool, then surely the smart thing is to tailor their approach to (1) their own requirements, but also (2) the capabilities of a tool.

It seems like a solution -> Requirement approach, but don't we need some measure of this? No point crafting a wonderful modelling approach, then finding there is no tool to which can do it without huge modification. And when maybe a small change to the modelling approach would make it fit disproportionately better with one or other tool.

I couldn't agree more with this, and in general universally if you refuse to allow the chosen platform to drive requirements you will end up with a complete mess that combines weak least-common-denominator fulfillment of functional requirements with the massive bloat of "platform independence."

It doesn't matter if you're designing a system, devising a method or picking a tool, if you put those blinkers on (horizontal blinkers, I guess, preventing you from looking down) you'll end up spending an enormous effort on shoehorning which, ultimately, is non-productive work.

Understanding the platform (tool, middleware, operating system, programming language...) and its capabilities, and making sure your solution fits on top of it, is Right not Wrong.


/Uffe

12
Bugs and Issues / ActivityParameter _instanceType not honoured
« on: April 25, 2018, 07:12:11 pm »
Hi all,

If you create two stereotypes, one of ActivityParameter and one of ActionPin, and specify that the parameter stereotype should be instantiated to the pin stereotype using the _instanceType attribute in the ActivityParameter metaclass, that specification is not honoured when EA creates an action pin during instantiation of an activity with parameters.

AFAIK there is no other way to instantiate an activity parameter. You can't drag-and-drop one onto an empty diagram area, nor onto an action.

Reported.


/Uffe

13
Bugs and Issues / Language in activity parameters and action pins
« on: April 25, 2018, 06:58:30 pm »
Hi all,


When you create an activity parameter in a diagram, the parameter's Language property is set to the project's default regardless of the corresponding properties in the diagram and the activity.

If you create the parameter in the Structural Elements dialog, the behaviour is the same.

The behaviour is also the same for action pins in actions, both when created from the toolbox and in the Structural Elements dialog.

When an action pin is created as the result of instantiating an activity with paremeters, the pin is likewise given the project default Language.

When an activity parameter is created, its Language should be set to the same as its parent activity's.
When a pin is created manually, its Language should be set to the same as its parent action's.
When a pin is created as an instance of a parameter, its Language should be set to the same as the corresponding parameter's.

Reported.


/Uffe

14
Bugs and Issues / Actions in toolboxes
« on: April 24, 2018, 09:05:52 pm »
Hi all,


If you specify a toolbox which includes the following attribute definition

Name: UML::CallBehaviorAction
Initial Value: CB Action

... the resulting toolbox creates CallBehaviorActions correctly, but the icon is incorrect. Instead of the standard action icon, the stereotype icon (from the Profile toolbox) is displayed.

If instead you define the toolbox attribute as

Name: UML::CallBehaviorAction(UML::Action)
Initial Value: CB Action

... the correct icon is displayed.


Also, while the user guide page on elements used in toolboxes omits CallOperationAction (but includes CallBehaviorAction), you can in fact specify a CallOperationAction in your toolbox, and it works as expected.

Both reported.


/Uffe

15
Bugs and Issues / CallOperation actions, action pins and exceptions
« on: April 23, 2018, 09:34:26 pm »
Hi all,


If I create a CallOperation, regardless of whether I've assigned an operation to it, I can't create my own action pins for it. That's OK, the intent is that CallOperation actions should be linked to operations, and the "Synchronize with Parameters" function in the properties dialog (in the Call tab) allows me to create pins for the operation's parameters.

But what if I want to create a pin for an exception?

An operation's parameters cannot be exceptions. There's no exception property to select. What you can do is add "raised exceptions" to the operation in the properties dialog, Redefines tab.

An action pin, on the other hand, can be an exception. There's an "Exception" property on a pin, and selecting it causes the pin to be displayed differently in diagrams (with an added triangle).

See where I'm going?

I can't manually add pins to a CallOperation action.
The CallOperation action's "Synchronize with Parameters" only creates action pins for the operation's parameters, not for its raised exceptions.
Pins can be exceptions, but operation parameters can't.

So.

How do I represent visually the call to an operation which throws exceptions?


/Uffe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21