To prioritize the engineering effort around Requirements in a defined way, I came to the idea to use the information already added for the FMEA.
For this I have created a Stereotype named fmeaRelevant (will be named better later), which has several Tags.
My target now is to first calculate the averages of all of these Tags and then from these the average RPN, which is again a Tag.
For this, I have already created a ConstrainedProperty, which has the respective ConstrainedParameters and Constraints.
BindingConnectors are created between the ConstrainedParameters of the ConstraintProperty and the Tags of the Stereotype.
The Stereotype is assigned to my Requirements.
However, Open ConstraintView ... does not show me anything.
Is there anything I am missing?
P.S.: I am not sure how to provide something like a source code snippet for model content. If one makes a proposal in a comment, I will add this.
You used binding connectors between stereotype properties and constraint parameters? That should not be possible, since they are on different levels. The parameters are on the model level and the stereotype properties are on the language level.
Of course, Rhapsody sometimes allows strange things, so it might well be, that there is a way to get it running.
The RPN relates to an actual hazordous situation. Your model describes this situation and all values relating to the situation should therefore be value properties of the FMEAitem. This element would be defined in a library. By the way, this is how it's done in the new RAAML-specification, which might be a useful reference.
Related
Can anyone actually explain, in layman's terms, what is a real-world use case for the set operation's options?
While I fully understand what set with merge does, as well as merge beeing a boolean and mergeFields being an array of fieldPaths, I cannot think of cases in which mergeFields might be of any use.
I also understand the fact that mergeFields basically acts like a mask for the object passed to the set operation, but I still cannot think of how is it so useful that it actually got implemented within the SDK.
Can someone shed some light?
After looking through the documentation, there seem to be two reasons why you might want to use one vs the other:
mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields trigger an error when passing in field values that don't currently exist on the document while merge will add in those fields if they don't exist. The error is good for safety purposes if you're concerned about typos/writing to incorrect field paths.
This one is just a guess, but the documentation indicates mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields ignores AND leaves fields untouched while merge ONLY leaves other fields untouched. It's possible there's some performance advantage to using mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields esp for documents with a ton of fields. The difference might be direct access vs still needing to look at unspecified fields to identify the matches in some way.
SetOptions Reference
I’m curious to know how feasible it is to get away from the dependency onto the application’s internal structure when you create an automated test case. Or you may need to rewrite the test case when a developer modifies a part of the code for a bug fix, etc.
We could write several automated test cases based on the applications internal object structure, but lets assume that the object hierarchy changes after 6 months or so, how do we approach these kind of issues?
I can't speak for other testing tools but at least in QTP's case the testing tool introduces a level of abstraction over the application so that non-functional changes in the application often (but not always) have no effect on the way the testing tool identifies the object.
For example in QTP all web elements are considered to be direct children of the document so that changes in the DOM (such as additional tables) don't change the object's description.
In TestComplete, there are a couple of ways to make sure that the changed app structure does not break you tests.
You can set up the Aliases tree of the Name Mapping feature. In this case, if the app structure is changed, you need to modify the Aliases tree appropriately and your test will stay working without requirement to modify them.
You can use the Extended Find feature of the Name Mapping in order to ignore parts of the the actual object tree and search for a needed objects on deeper levels.
This is what I was forced to do after losing all my work twice due to changes on the DOM structure:
Every single time I need to work with an object, I use the Find function with the ID of the object, searching for the object on the Page object. This way, whenever the DOM gets updated, my tests still run smoothly.
The only thing that will break my tests is if the object's ID get changed, but that's not very probable to happen.
Here you can find some examples of the helper functions I use.
I've wondered this in many different situations, so here I come, looking for the experts knowledge.
Let's say I have to model something that requires a collection. A simple example: an application that stores famous quotes along with their author and a set of tags or keywords. The user should be able to enter a tag or keyword and get matching quotes for it.
My question is: do I really need a class that contains my collection of quotes? Something like this:
Or would this also be correct?
I'm asking this in the more abstract way possible (after all, UML should never depend on the implementation).
I've always thought the second example (just 1 class) was incorrect, but now I'm thinking that maybe the user can press a button on some interface and that button executes some code that gets a quote stored somewhere, and the second example would also be correct?
Basically, should I always have a collection stored somewhere, even if the storing class does nothing else but just store the collection (and provide the methods to access it)?
I definitelly prefer only one class, if there is no strong reason to have another container class (especially on abstract conceptual level). Then I add the collection methods as static functions. A separate container class would only bring more complexity, more dependencies and doubts like yours. :) Doubts often indicate the lack of a real need. When you really need something, you know it.
Here an example with some explanations. I find it simple, clear, elegant and abstract, meaning non-restrictive, easy to transform to any implementation you like:
When it comes to relationships of this class to other class, then you actially have your collection, without introducing new class. This diagram shows two examples. "Other class" actually sees a collection "quotes" which is ordered, like Vector. "One more class" also has a collection of Quotes with different characteristics.
Later on implementation level you can implement it directly like this or eventually adding a Factory or Container class, according to concrete, implemention resctrictions and special reqs.
I wish to extend the person object with additional attributes through an aspect, however several of the aspect properties need to be multi-valued i.e. contain more than one value.
e.g a person's skill set.
How do I achieve this?
What you want to do is define your property with multiple="true" to make it multi-valued. This is detailed in the documentation here.
If you're new to creating Alfesco models, you might find these two wiki pages helpful. The book Professional Alfresco is also recommended, and the modelling section hasn't changed since it was written (though a few other areas have)
I know that you can create new classes in R, but why would you want to? I've thought of two reasons:
You can use the is. function to test whether an object belongs to a particular class (classifications of objects)
To only allow certain classes of entries into slots of an object (e.g., only a string for the surnmane and only a number for a zip code in the person class).
I haven't thought of situations where these benefits couldn't be achieved fairly easily by other means or when they'd really be useful.
I hope that this isn't too open ended and more concrete examples how one might use defining classes would be great. Thanks for any thoughts.
Its called Object-Oriented programming. Look it up, but in short:
Objects encapsulate behaviour - eg the behaviour of the 'print' method for a class is specific to that class. You can then keep the code for that method on that class separate from other code. You then only have to tell your users to "print" the thing - which is something they already do - and they get a nicely custom printed version of your thing, without having to use a special print function, like "printMyThing(thing)".
Objects inherit behaviour from their parent classes - eg the 'formula' method for the glm class falls back to the formula method for the lm class (not sure if this is true, but its just for illustration.
In short, its a Good Thing.